Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-23-16 Planning and Development Board Meeting Agenda PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT BOARD AGENDA The regular meeting of the PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT BOARD will be held at 6:00 p.m.on AUGUST 23RD,2016 in the SECOND FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM*,City Hall,108 E.Green Street,Ithaca,NY.(*NOTE ROOM CHANGE.) AGENDA ITEM Approx.Start Time 1.Agenda Review 6:00 2.Privilege of the Floor (3 minute maximum per person if you will be speaking about a project with a scheduled PUBLIC HEARING below ,you are highly encouraged to speak at that time) 6:01 3.Subdivision Review A.Project:Minor Subdivision 6:20 Location:123 &125 Eddy St. Applicant:Nick Lambrou Actions:Declaration of Lead Agency PUBLIC HEARING Determination of Environmental Significance Recommendation to BZA Project Description:The applicant proposes to subdivide the 13,180 SF lot into two parcels:Lot 125,measuring 7,350 SF with 52.5 feet of frontage on Eddy St.,and on which a new 2 family home is proposed;and Lot 123, measuring 5,830 SF with 47 feet of frontage on Eddy St.,and which contains an existing multiple dwelling and one single family dwelling.The property is in the R 2b Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF and minimum street width of 45’for 2 family dwellings,and 4,000 SF and 50’feet for other uses;and minimum front, side,and rear yard setbacks of 25’,10’and 25%or 50’,but no less than 20 feet,respectively.The project requires Zoning Variances for deficient off street parking on both proposed lots.This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”)and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”)and is subject to Environmental Review. CITY OF ITHACA 108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Division of Planning & Economic Development Telephone: Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6559 E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org APPLICANT OVERHEAD PROJECTOR NOTE: The City only has a VGA plug/cable available to connect to our overhead projector.If you need to connect another way,you will need to provide your own ADAPTOR.(Macs &many newer,lighter laptops may not have a VGA port.) If you have a disability &would like specific accommodation to participate, please contact City Clerk at 274 6570 by 12:00 p.m.,the day before the meeting. Start Times:Start times are approximate only —APPLICANTS are responsible for being available at whatever time(s)their agenda item(s)is actually discussed. “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.”2 4.Site Plan Review A.Project:MixedUse Building (Harold’s Square)6:40 Location:123139 E.State St.(The Commons) Applicant:David Lubin for L Enterprises, LLC Actions:Consideration of Project Changes Project Description:The applicant is requesting changes to the project that was approved on 8/27/13.The changes are proposed to accommodate a shift in the building program to decrease office space from 43,900 SF to 25,285 SF and increase residential units from 46 to 108.The following changes are requested that affect the exterior appearance of the building:an increase from 4 to 5 stories facing the Commons (building height remaining the same);an increase from 11 to 12 stories facing Green Street with an increase in building height of 1’11”;changes in size of windows,position of balconies,and pattern of exterior finishes,as well as the elimination of one of the step backs on the Commonsfacing side of the tower. B.Project:MixedUse Building —Collegetown Crossing 6:55 Location:307 College Ave. Applicant:ScottWhitham Actions:Consideration of Project Changes (Landscape) Project Description:The applicant is requesting changes to the project that was approved on 8/27/13.The changes consist of simplifying and altering materials for the landscape along the throughblock walkway.Staff previously approved minor landscape changes to this area.However,the changes now proposed require Planning Board review. C.Project:Apartment Building 7:05 Location:201 College Ave. Applicant:Noah Demarest,STREAM Collaborative,for Visum Development Group Actions:Consideration of Amended Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance Request For Zoning Interpretation &Appeal Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval Project Description:The applicant proposes to build a 5story apartment building on a0.173 acre lot at the corner of College Avenue and Bool Street.The building will contain 44 dwelling units with approximately 76 bedrooms. The basement level will have a trash room,a fitness room with windows looking out to the street,and a bicycle garage for approximately 20 bikes with ramp access from a doorway on Bool Street.Other proposed amenities include landscaping,lighting,4 outdoor bike racks,and street trees.The site has a 17’difference in elevation from the southwest corner to the northeast corner,rising from 690.00 to 707.00.Site development will require the removal of the existing 2story woodframed house containing 1 apartment with 12 bedrooms,gravel parking area, and five trees.The project is proposing a curb bumpout that will require approval form the Board of Public Works. The project is in the MU1 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD).The project has been revised so that it no longer requires an Area Variance.This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”),§1764 B(1)(k)&(h)[4],and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”),§617.4(b)(11),for which the Planning Board made a Negative Declaration of Environmental significance on May 24,2016. D.S KETCH PLAN:607 S.Aurora St. 7:35 4.Zoning Appeals #3038,Area Variance,125 Eddy St. #3039,Area Variance,123 Eddy St. #3041,Area Variance,213 Cascadilla St. #3043,Area Variance,107 Lincoln St. 7:50 “An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification.” 3 5.Old/New Business A. Chain Works District Redevelopment Project DGEIS:Special Planning Board Meeting,August 30,2016, 6:00 p.m.to Review Comments/Responses B. Maguire/Carpenter Business Park Temp.Mandatory Planned Unit Development (PUD):Public Information Session,Wednesday,August 31,2016,6:00 p.m.,Common Council Chambers 7:55 6.Reports A.Planning Board Chair (verbal) 8:05 B.Director of Planning &Development (verbal) C.Board of Public Works Liaison (verbal) 7.Approval of Minutes:April 24,2016,May 24,2016,June 28,2016,and/or July 26,2016 (time permitting) 8:15 8.Adjournment 8:16 ACCESSING MEETING MATERIALS ONLINE Site Plan Review &Subdivision Applications (and Related Documents) Site Plan Review application documents are accessible electronically via the “Document Center”on the City web site (www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter),under “Planning &Development”>“Site Plan Review Project Applications,”and in the relevant year/month folder.Subdivision application materials can be similarly located, but in the “Subdivision Applications”folder.Zoning Appeal Materials are also accessible electronically via the “Document Center”on the City web site,under “Board of Zoning Appeals." Agenda You may access this agenda (including attachments)by going to the “Agenda Center”on the City web site (www.cityofithaca.org/agendacenter),under “Planning & Development Board.”For ease of access,a link to the most recent Planning Board agenda is always accessible on the Planning Board home page: http://www.cityofithaca.org/354/Planning Development Board. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York 14850-6590 Graham Kerslick, Fourth Ward Telephone: 607-273-4620 gkerslick@cityofithaca.org Fax: 607-274-6432 August 17, 2016 To: Lisa Nicholas, Senior Planner From: Graham Kerslick Re: Comments and Concerns from Area residents Project: Minor Subdivision Location: 123 & 125 Eddy St. Applicant: Nick Lambrou Anticipated Board Action(s) in August: Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and Recommendation to BZA Project Description: The applicant proposes to subdivide the 13,180-SF lot into two parcels: Lot 125, measuring 7,350 SF with 52.5 feet of frontage on Eddy St., and on which a new 2-family home is proposed; and Lot 123, measuring 5,830 SF with 47 feet of frontage on Eddy St., and which contains an existing multiple dwelling and one single-family dwelling. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF and minimum street width of 45’ for 2-family dwellings, and 4,000 SF and 50’ feet for other uses; and minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 25’, 10’ and 25% or 50’, but no less than 20 feet, respectively. The project requires Zoning Variances for deficient off-street parking on both proposed lots. This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) and is subject to Environmental Review. Comments and concerns from area residents 1. Building design. Given that the proposed building is in the East Hill Historic District and is adjacent to single family homes on Orchard Place residents would like more information and drawings to be made available. The front façade drawing gives a very limited impression of the proposed structure. The south and west elevations are especially important, since these will face homes on Orchard Place. The building design and materials used should be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Recent examples of such sensitive, consistent design and construction include 202 Eddy St and 107 Cook St. 2. Landscaping and screening. Area residents are concerned with the increasing loss of mature trees and green landscaping in the neighborhood. They would like to have mature trees preserved wherever possible. Residents also seek assurances that any outdoor safety/security lighting will be designed and installed to ensure no “spill-over” into the surrounding neighborhood. A detailed plan to provide improved landscaping and screening towards Orchard Place is requested as part of this project. 3. Building occupancy. The building proposed is a “new 2-family home”. Area residents would like to know what this means in terms of the maximum occupancy of the proposed development. The R-2b zoning allows for a “two-family dwelling, each unit of which may be occupied by an individual or family plus not more than two unrelated occupants per unit”. 4. Traffic. Recognizing that Orchard Place is a private street neighboring residents request more information regarding any vehicle access plans for the new building. Residents are seeking assurances from the developer that the proposed development involves no plans that would increase vehicle traffic on Orchard Place. 5. Parking. During the semester available on-street parking in this area is extremely limited. New development in central Collegetown will increase demand for parking in surrounding streets. Given that the proposed sub-divided properties will be deficient by a total of 7 parking spaces neighboring residents would like more information on projected total number of vehicles connected with the proposal and what plans, if any, the developer has to address this deficiency. Over the past year peak occupancy in the Dryden Rd garage has reached 80% in some months. This is an industry standard for a parking resource at, or near capacity. How will increasing demand for parking be addressed? 6. Dumpsters and garbage collection. Residents would like to know what the garbage collection plans are for the proposed development. Residents are concerned with the increasing use of dumpsters in residential areas of Collegetown. Such dumpsters lead to an increase in heavy vehicle traffic and noise in the early hours of the day. In addition several dumpsters have inadequate screening and some have been used in a manner that is in violation of City Code. 7. Impact during construction. If the proposed sub-division and new building are approved residents request that the City ensure that all construction activity be restricted to the site itself and that any access, material disposal etc. be from Eddy St and that access from Orchard Place will not be used or requested. Residents also ask that the permitted hours of construction be reasonable and clearly communicated to all parties. PROPOSED RESOLUTION Minor Subdivision Declaration of Lead Agency City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #68.-7-13 123-125 Eddy Street City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board August 23, 2016 WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #68.-1-13, located at 123- 125 Eddy Street, by Nick Lambrou, and WHEREAS:the applicant proposes to subdivide the 13,180-SF lot into two parcels: Lot 125, measuring 7,350 SF with 52.5 feet of frontage on Eddy St., and on which a new 2-family home is proposed; and Lot 123, measuring 5,830 SF with 47 feet of frontage on Eddy St., and which contains an existing multiple dwelling and one single-family dwelling. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF and minimum street width of 45’ for 2-family dwellings, and 4,000 SF and 50’ feet for other uses; and minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 25’, 10’ and 25% or 50’, but no less than 20 feet, respectively. The resultant parcels require variances for deficient off-street parking. The project is in the East Hill Historic District and the proposed new duplex will require both a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission and Site Plan Review, and WHEREAS: the construction of a two-family home is a Type 2 Action and is exempt from Environmental Review, and a Minor Subdivision within a Historic District is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require Environmental Review, and WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and WHEREAS: State Law specifies that, for actions governed by local environmental review, the Lead Agency shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby declare itself Lead Agency for the Environmental Review for the action of Subdivision approval for City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #68.-1-13, located at 123-125 Eddy Street, by Nick Lambrou. Moved by: Seconded by: In favor: Against: Abstain: Absent: Vacancies: None PROPOSED RESOLUTION Minor Subdivision CEQR — Negative Declaration City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #68.-7-13 123-125 Eddy St. City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board August 23, 2016 WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for a Minor Subdivision of City of Ithaca Tax Parcel #68.-1-13, located at 123-125 Eddy Street, by Nick Lambrou, and WHEREAS:the applicant proposes to subdivide the 13,180-SF lot into two parcels: Lot 125, measuring 7,350 SF with 52.5 feet of frontage on Eddy St., and on which a new 2-family home is proposed; and Lot 123, measuring 5,830 SF with 47 feet of frontage on Eddy St., and which contains an existing multiple dwelling and one single-family dwelling. The property is in the R-2b Zoning District which has a minimum lot size of 3,000 SF and minimum street width of 45’ for 2- family dwellings, and 4,000 SF and 50’ feet for other uses; and minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 25’, 10’ and 25% or 50’, but no less than 20 feet, respectively. The resultant parcels require Zoning Variances for deficient off- street parking. The project is in the East Hill Historic District and the proposed new duplex will require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission, as well as Site Plan Approval, and WHEREAS: the construction of a two-family home is a Type 2 Action and is exempt from Environmental Review, and a Minor Subdivision within a Historic District is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of which require Environmental Review, and WHEREAS: this is considered a Minor Subdivision in accordance with the City of Ithaca Code, Chapter 290, Article 1, §290-1, Minor Subdivision – Any subdivision of land resulting in creation of a maximum of one additional buildable lot, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, has on August 23, 2016 declared itself Lead Agency for the Environmental Review, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did on August 23, 2016 review and accept as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning staff; a preliminary Subdivision plat titled “Proposed Subdivision, 123-125 Eddy St., Ithaca NY,” dated 6/7/16; and a drawing titled “Proposed 2-Family Dwelling, 123 Eddy St., Ithaca, NY,” dated 8/16/16 and all prepared by Jagat P. Sharma, architect; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received have been considered, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board recognizes that information received and reviewed for this Subdivision indicates the resultant parcels require Area Variances for relief from off-street parking requirements in the area requirements of the R-2b Zoning District, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed Subdivision will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Moved by: Seconded by: In favor: Against: Abstain: Absent: Vacancies: 0 ADOPTED RESOLUTION City of Ithaca Preliminary & Final Approval Site Plan Review Harold’s Square (Mixed-Use Project) 123-127, 133, 135 & 137-139 E. State St. (The Commons) Planning & Development Board August 27, 2013 WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan Review for a 11-story mixed-use building by Scott Whitham, applicant for owner, L Enterprises, LLC, and WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to develop a 140-foot tall, 11-story, mixed-use building of approximately 151,410 GSF, plus an additional 11,340 GSF in the renovated Sage Block. The project will include one story (17,835 GSF) of ground-floor retail, three stories (51,185 GSF) of upper-story office, and six stories of residential (up to 46 units). The residential portion of the project is in a tower, set back 62’ from the building’s four-story Commons façade. The building will have two main entrances, one on the Commons and one facing Green Street, with an atrium linking the two streets. The project is on the CDB-60 and CDB 140 Zoning Districts and has received an area variance for rear yard setback, as well as Design Review. As proposed, the project may require a State building Code Variance, and WHEREAS: this is a Type I Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B. (1)(h)[4], B(1)(k) and B. (1)(n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act 617.4 (b)(9) and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: on December 18, 2012, the Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, declared itself Lead Agency for the project, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on June 25, 2013 review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff and revised by the Planning Board; drawings entitled: “Utility Plan (C2)” and “Construction Operations Plan (C3),” prepared by Fagan Engineers, and dated 1/30/13, and “Existing Site Plan,” “Proposed Site Plan,” “Basement Floor Plan,” “First Floor Plan,” ‘Second Floor Plan,” “Third Floor Plan,” “Fourth Floor Plan,” “Typical Residential Floor Plan,” “Tenth Floor Residential Floor Plan,’ “Penthouse Floor Plan,” “Diagrammatic Building Section,” “Existing Streetscape Along Ithaca Commons – North Facades,” “Existing Streetscape Along Ithaca Commons – South Facades,” “Building Massing Views,” “Shadow Study,” “Proposed Building Materials,” “Proposed North Elevation,” “Proposed East Elevation,” “Proposed South Elevation,” “Proposed West Elevation,” ‘Proposed View Along Ithaca Commons,” and “Perspective View From Green Street,” all dated 5/28/13, and prepared by Chaintreuil Jensen Stark Architects, LLP; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, and WHEREAS: comments received from Ed Marx, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, regarding the project, suggested the applicant consider a green roof for the portion which fronts the Commons (or the requirement of light-colored reflective roofing materials) and recommended the applicant provide more visual modeling to assess any impacts to the character of the built environment, and WHEREAS: in response to the County’s comments, the Lead Agency has considered the possibility of a green roof and has required a light-colored roof during Site Plan Review and has determined the applicant PREVIOUSLY APPROVED has provided sufficient visual simulations to evaluate any impacts to aesthetics and to historic resources, and WHEREAS: comments received form the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) stated that, “Were this under our review as a regulatory matter it would be deemed to have an adverse impact on historic resources simply for the demolition of properties contributing to the National Register of Historic Places listed Ithaca Downtown Historic District. Manipulation of the design of the replacement building is a matter of mitigation for that loss,” and that, “The City of Ithaca should consider the cumulative effects of ongoing physical development on the historic character of the remaining historic streetscape,” and WHEREAS: in response to the SHPO’s comments, as well as concerns identified by the Lead Agency, the applicant is being required to provide mitigations for the removal of the two buildings that are contributing to the Downtown National Register Historic District, as described in Part 3 of the FEAF, and WHEREAS: On June 23, 2013, City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determined that, with the incorporation of the mitigations identified in Part 3 of the FEAF, the proposed site plan would result in no significant impact on the environment and issued a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance, and WHEREAS: on July 11, 2013, the Design Review Board did review the project and make recommendations to the applicant regarding the design of the building, to which the applicant has responded, and WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with Chapters 276-6 B. (4) and 176-12 A. (2) (c) of the City of Ithaca Code, and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board held the required public hearing on August 27, 2013, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board did on August 27, 2013 review and accept as adequate: revised drawings entitled: “Existing Site Plan,” “Proposed Site Plan,” “Basement Floor Plan,” “First Floor Plan,” ‘Second Floor Plan,” “Third Floor Plan,” “Fourth Floor Plan,” “Typical Residential Floor Plan,” “Tenth Floor Residential Floor Plan,” “Penthouse Floor Plan,” “Diagrammatic Building Section,” “Existing Streetscape Along Ithaca Commons – North Facades,” “Existing Streetscape Along Ithaca Commons – South Facades,” “Building Massing Views,” “Shadow Study,” “Proposed Building Materials,” “Proposed North Elevation,” “Ithaca Commons – North Façade – Perspective From North,” “Proposed East Elevation,” “Proposed South Elevation,” “Proposed West Elevation,” ‘Proposed View Along Ithaca Commons,” and “Perspective View From Green Street,” all dated 8/27/13, and prepared by Chaintreuil Jensen Stark Architects, LLP; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the above referenced project, subject to the following conditions: Unmet Conditions As Per FEAF, Part 3, Adopted on June 25, 2013 i. Upon exposure of the neighboring basement foundation walls, their condition will be assessed and repairs will be coordinated, as required, with the building owners to maintain the integrity of those buildings and a safe construction environment, and ii. Noise producing construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday between 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m., and iii. The applicant shall provide a pedestrian access plan for review and approval by the City Transportation Engineer and the Planning and Development Board, and iv. The applicant shall provide a traffic control and truck routing plan for review and approval by the City Transportation Engineer and the Planning Board, and v. The applicant shall provide a more detailed construction impacts and staging plan for review and approval by the City Transportation Engineer and the Planning Board, and vi. Construction shall be coordinated with the Ithaca Commons Repair and Upgrade Project to minimize noise impacts, and vii. Rehabilitation of the Sage Block will include the following: a. Maintaining the existing terra cotta cornice at the north and northwest corner of the building, and b. Cleaning, repointing, and repairing the existing exterior masonry walls, and c. Repair and/or replacement of the existing roof, and d. New fenestration at existing masonry openings on the north and west sides of the building. When practical, existing windows will be repaired, but if they are deteriorated to the point of requiring replacement, they will be replaced to match design, color, texture, and perhaps material construction, and e. Replacement window design will reflect a characteristic William H. Miller divided light pattern at the upper window areas, similar to what currently exists on the Sage Block building, and f. The incorporation of the west fenestration into the new project atrium space, and g. The existing interior character will be restored and maintained wherever possible, with additional modifications developed per the needs and requirements of potential tenants, and viii. Plans for the exterior renovation of the Sage Block will require review and approval by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC), using the same standards it uses to evaluate proposed work on locally designated buildings. Of particular interest are (1) the preservation of the entire cornice; (2) evaluation of the existing fenestration by a qualified professional with significant experience in restoring wood windows; (3) proper techniques for cleaning, repointing and repairing the existing exterior masonry; and (4) reconstruction of the northwest corner where brickwork is interlocked with the brickwork of 135 E. State Street, and ix. The carved limestone detailing and green roof tiles of 123 127 E. State Street shall be salvaged and donated to an architectural elements reuse firm or agency — or, if feasible, the salvaged carved limestone detailing could be used in the interior of the Harold’s Square project, if the applicant so desires, and Additional Conditions Identified in Site Plan Review x. Submission to Planning Board of color elevations keyed to materials sample sheet, and xi. Submission to Planning Board of site details, including, but not limited to, building materials, lighting, signage, site furnishings and paving materials, and xii. Submission to the Project Review Committee of the final 4th floor roof plan; this plan shall incorporate a light-colored roofing material and, if feasible, some areas of green roof, and xiii. Tower roof shall also be of light-colored roofing material, and xiv. Bicycle storage for retail, office and residential tenants shall be provided within the building, and xv. Approval from the Planning Board of the proposed bridge connection to the Green Street Parking Garage, and xvi. Bridge connection to the Green Street Parking Garage requires approval from the Board of Public Works, and xvii. A Staging Plan Agreement must be in place with the Department of Public Works and the Building Division before issuance of a building permit, and xviii. Applicant must obtain an encroachment agreement for any portion of the project, including door swings, that impacts City property, and xix. Any changes to the design of the building that affects the exterior appearance, including rooftop mechanicals, must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board, and xx. Approval in writing from the Fire Department confirming the project complies with all life safety needs, and xxi. Approval in writing from the City Stormwater Management Officer. Moved by: Fernández Seconded by: Blalock In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Fernández, Jones-Rounds, Randall, Schroeder Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: Acharya Vacancy: 0 PROPOSED RESOLUTION City of Ithaca Approval of Project Changes Site Plan Review Harold’s Square (Mixed-Use Project) 123-127, 133, 135 & 137-139 E. State St. (The Commons) Planning & Development Board August 23, 2016 WHEREAS: the project applicant is requesting materials and building façade changes for the proposed Harold’s Square Mixed-Use Project, which was approved by the Planning Board on August 27, 2013; and for which the Board subsequently granted a two-year extension of Site Plan Approval until August 27, 2017, subject to all the conditions stated and all drawings cited in the Final Site Plan Review Approval resolution, dated August 27, 2013, and subject to the applicant’s obtaining all necessary Zoning Variances, and WHEREAS: in accordance with §276-6 D., “Changes to approved site plan,” the Director of Planning and Development has reviewed the changes and determined the changes are significant enough to require re-opening the review, but not significant enough to require a new Site Plan Review Application, and WHEREAS: the changes are proposed to accommodate a shift in the building program to decrease office space from 43,900 SF to 25,285 SF and increase residential units from 46 to 108. The following changes are requested that affect the exterior appearance of the building: an increase from 4 to 5 stories facing the Commons (building height remaining the same); an increase from 11 to 12 stories facing Green Street with an increase in building height of 1’11”; changes in size of windows, position of balconies, and pattern of exterior finishes, as well as the elimination of one of the step-backs on the Commons- facing side of the tower and narrowing of the tower width, and WHEREAS: the Board has on August 23, 2016 reviewed and accepted as adequate: revised and updated plans entitled “Updated North Elevation,” “Updated West Elevation,” “Updated East Elevation,” and “Updated South Elevation,” dated 8/9/16, and all prepared by CJS Architects; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the Board has on August 23, 2016 determined the proposed changes are consistent with the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance filed on June 25, 2013 and, therefore, no further Environmental Review is required, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board agrees to the changes proposed by the applicant, subject to the following conditions: i. Submission of an updated Traffic Analysis, and ii. Submission to the Planning Board of Floor Plans, and iii. Submission to the Planning Board of updated perspective drawings from all angles, and iv. Addition of glass block in stairwell/elevator shaft on north tower elevation and west elevation (lower portion), and v. Restoration of terra cotta cap and vertical bands — effectively outlining the building on the north façade of tower, and vi. Restoration of window on East Elevation over the Sage Building, and vii. Submission to the Planning Board of updated colored elevation keyed to materials, and Agreed Upon Mitigations as Per FEAF, Part 3, Adopted on June 25, 2013 viii. Upon exposure of the neighboring basement foundation walls, their condition will be assessed and repairs will be coordinated, as required, with the building owners to maintain the integrity of those buildings and a safe construction environment, and ix. Noise producing construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday between 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m., and x. The applicant shall provide a Pedestrian Access Plan for review and approval by the City Transportation Engineer and the Planning Board, and xi. The applicant shall provide a Traffic Control and Truck Routing Plan for review and approval by the City Transportation Engineer and the Planning Board, and xii. The applicant shall provide a more detailed Construction Impacts and Staging Plan for review and approval by the City Transportation Engineer and the Planning Board, and xiii. Construction shall be coordinated with the Ithaca Commons Repair and Upgrade Project to minimize noise impacts, and xiv. Rehabilitation of the Sage Block will include the following: a. Maintaining the existing terra cotta cornice at the north and northwest corner of the building, and b. Cleaning, repointing, and repairing the existing exterior masonry walls, and c. Repair and/or replacement of the existing roof, and d. New fenestration at existing masonry openings on the north and west sides of the building. When practical, existing windows will be repaired, but if they are deteriorated to the point of requiring replacement, they will be replaced to match design, color, texture, and perhaps material construction, and e. Replacement window design will reflect a characteristic William H. Miller divided light pattern at the upper window areas, similar to what currently exists on the Sage Block building, and f. The incorporation of the west fenestration into the new project atrium space, and g. The existing interior character will be restored and maintained wherever possible, with additional modifications developed per the needs and requirements of potential tenants, and xv. Plans for the exterior renovation of the Sage Block will require review and approval by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC), using the same standards it uses to evaluate proposed work on locally designated buildings. Of particular interest are (1) the preservation of the entire cornice; (2) evaluation of the existing fenestration by a qualified professional with significant experience in restoring wood windows; (3) proper techniques for cleaning, repointing and repairing the existing exterior masonry; and (4) reconstruction of the northwest corner where brickwork is interlocked with the brickwork of 135 E. State Street, and xvi. The carved limestone detailing and green roof tiles of 123 127 E. State Street shall be salvaged and donated to an architectural elements reuse firm or agency — or, if feasible, the salvaged carved limestone detailing could be used in the interior of the Harold’s Square project, if the applicant so desires, and Additional Unmet Conditions Identified in Site Plan Review: xvii. Submission to Planning Board of color elevations keyed to materials sample sheet, and xviii. Submission to Planning Board of site details, including, but not limited to, building materials, lighting, signage, site furnishings and paving materials, and xix. Submission to the Project Review Committee of the final 4th floor roof plan; this plan shall incorporate a light-colored roofing material and, if feasible, some areas of green roof, and xx. Tower roof shall also be of light-colored roofing material, and xxi. Bicycle storage for retail, office and residential tenants shall be provided within the building, and xxii. Approval from the Planning Board of the proposed bridge connection to the Green Street Parking Garage, and xxiii. Bridge connection to the Green Street Parking Garage requires approval from the Board of Public Works, and xxiv. A Staging Plan Agreement must be in place with the Department of Public Works and the Building Division before issuance of a building permit, and xxv. Applicant must obtain an encroachment agreement for any portion of the project, including door swings, that impacts City property, and xxvi. Any changes to the design of the building that affects the exterior appearance, including rooftop mechanicals, must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board, and xxvii. Approval in writing from the Fire Department confirming the project complies with all life safety needs, and xxviii. Approval in writing from the City Stormwater Management Officer. Moved by: Seconded by In Favor: Against: Abstain: Absent: Vacancy: 0 Phone: 607.379.9175 Email: whitham@whithamdesign.com 123 S. Cayuga Street Suite 201 Ithaca, NY 14850 August 16, 2016 Lisa Nicholas Senior Planner City of Ithaca 108 E. Green Street Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 Re: Collegetown Crossing, 307 College Ave. Dear Lisa: We are proposing a modification to the long strip of land on the border between 307 College Avenue (Collegetown Crossing) and Fire Station #9. The approved landscape (attached) included densely-planted swaths of groundcover with some shrubs and small trees. Five benches line the garden. The modified plan still maintains a through-block pedestrian connection, plantings, and the five benches, but does so with less long-term intervention on the city-owned portion of the property. The new landscape plan specifies a gravel base (1.5-2” landscape quality mixed river stone) with seat height boulders and some creek flats softened by shade-tolerant perennials and punctuated with appropriate shrubs. Plan attached. We look forward to our conversation with you and other city officials. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me, or any of the project team, with questions or concerns. Sincerely, Scott Whitham AS SHOWN MAY 05, 2016 ALT SCHEME #2 Planting Schedule: Trees Acer pennsylvanicum Moosewood Maple Acer pennsylvanicum ‘erythrocladum’ Red-Branched Moosewood Maple Groundcover Asarum canadense Wild Ginger Carex morowii ‘variegata’ Variegated Japanese Sedge Polystichum acrostichoides Christmas Fern Site Furniture: Block Wood Benches COLLEGETOWN CROSSING: PLANTING SCHEME 05.03.2016 AlternativeLandscape:Scheme 2 AS SHOWN MAY 05, 2016 ALT SCHEME #2 Planting Schedule: Trees Acer pennsylvanicum Moosewood Maple Acer pennsylvanicum ‘erythrocladum’ Red-Branched Moosewood Maple Groundcover Asarum canadense Wild Ginger Carex morowii ‘variegata’ Variegated Japanese Sedge Polystichum acrostichoides Christmas Fern Site Furniture: Block Wood Benches AlternativeLandscape:Scheme 2 PROPOSED RESOLUTION Site Plan Review Approval of Project Changes — Landscape City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board Collegetown Crossing (Mixed-Use Housing) 307 College Ave. August 23, 2016 WHEREAS: the applicant is requesting changes to the proposed landscaping and exterior furnishings that were approved by the Planning Board on 9/23/14 and for which a subsequent revision was approved by staff on 5/10/16, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes changes from the originally approved design that replaces the curved stone seating with linear wooden benches, adds landscape boulders, and creates a rock garden design with stone mulch and groupings of lower growing plantings, and WHEREAS: in accordance with §276-6 D., “Changes to approved site plan,” the Director of Planning and Development has reviewed the changes and determined the changes are significant enough to require re-opening the review, but not significant enough to require a new Site Plan Review Application, and WHEREAS: the Board has on August 23, 2016 reviewed and accepted as adequate a revised drawing titled “Alternative Landscape: Scheme 3,” dated 8/15/16 and prepared by Whitham Planning & Design, LLC; and other materials, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board agrees to the changes proposed by the applicant, subject to the following conditions: INSERT CONDITIONS (if any) Moved by: Seconded by: In Favor: Against: Abstain: Absent: Vacancies: 0 IN SUPPORT OF 201 COLLEGE AVE. OVERVIEW After receiving materials from the city regarding the petition distributed by Neil Golder,we began a due diligence regarding the project at 201 College Ave.We wanted to understand more about the petition that was distributed by Mr.Golder and see how we could use this information to better serve the community.Our ultimate goal was to see if Mr.Golder was objective and if he actually delivered all the facts when gathering signatures and support or,were the petitions signers were misinformed.In what follows,we will briefly overview our discoveries. INITIAL PETITIONS We reached out to people who signed Mr.Golder’s petition,and emailed them to ask about their interaction with Neil so that we could understand why they signed a petition to impede our development project.After reaching out personally we received direct responses from six individuals who were able to better describe why they signed Mr.Golder’s petition,and how their interactions with him transpired. Excerpts from these conversations appear below.They have been edited for length,but no edits have reflected a change in content or context.We asked them about their interaction by saying the following: “Last semester a man was going around collecting petitions from students regarding a proposed project in Collegetown.We are looking for more context regarding the signatures he collected and trying to better understand what conversations took place.All I'm asking you to do is email me back with a few sentences overviewing your interaction with this gentleman,and then we can better construct the story around the petition.” In response to this inquiry we received emails and testimony that stated the following: “We were all day drinking and an old guy came over to our party.It was a big group of us and we had been drinking all day so of course we let him talk to us.Then we all signed because he was waiting on us and we wanted to go back to the party.I don’t remember what it was about but I think he lived across the street.”Camila S. “An older man came up to a house that a lot of my friends live in on College Ave.to request that we sign his petition. He has been living in Collegetown for his entire life.Recently,he installed solar panels.A new building that is supposed to be built in Collegetown will apparently block out these solar panels,so he wanted signatures.”–Jena B. “I know this is probably terrible since I signed my name,but I honestly don't really remember much.I was on the phone and I think he wanted me to sign a petition for taking down a tree or something that had to do with nature.” –Madeline M. “To my recollection he claimed to be a nearby resident that was objecting to the construction as it will be an eye sore as a building amongst mainly houses.Additionally that the added traffic/parking needs will congest the area.I personally signed because traffic can get rough on that road sometimes but mainly because of the atmosphere the houses occupied by students gave to the area.I enjoyed after long days of school walking home and seeing social/fun activities going on outdoors on residents lawns and porches,which reminded students to take stress relief breaks.The interaction was brief,not much info was available.If that's the case [referring to the rezone of the area] then both reasons I signed for would not be sustained,since a lot of changes are coming.I don't believe we were told anything else about the project.”–Kareem S. “So the guy just asked for signature to maintain the forestry in Ithaca.He barely explained about the development,I would have not signed if I had known more.”–Alexander F. “I only remember briefly,but he and a few other people (maybe there was a kid or two)told me the story on how the development could be troublesome to them.I think he was mostly concerned about noise and may also said something about sunlight.The people seemed somewhat concerned so I thought it would make me a horrible person if I just walked away without signing!”Akihiro K. 201 College Ave. Site Plan Review (submitted by applicant on 8/16/16) As you can see there were many different stories communicated during this petition process,and the individuals who signed the petition were not informed about the full scope of the project or why they were being encouraged to sign.Over time we learned that Mr.Golder was actually gaining signatures that indicated signees were supporting the forestry in Ithaca.The image below is a picture of the sign used by Mr.Golder when collecting signatures. It became clear that many signees who interacted with Mr.Golder and signed his petition were led to believe that they were supporting a broad stroke initiative to “save”these trees and this neighborhood.With no further information,many signees felt compelled to support this man who wanted to “save”these things.However,if presented with all the details about 201 College Ave project and new zoning,these signees would have been better able to understand that this project was not creating a forced choice.It was not “these trees”and “this neighborhood”or the project at 201.Rather,the project could occur and the neighborhood could remain.The project is working to provide other important positive aspects such as attractive living units and a facelift for the otherwise rundown streetscape –and without informing these signees of the entire situation,their ability to support the cause became null and void. We followed up this diligence regarding the petition process with another email that will be outlined in the following section. FOLLOW UP WITH PETITION SIGNERS After finding out more about how the initial petition was administered we followed up with everyone who signed Mr. Golder’s petition.After deciphering many of the emails included in the email list we sent out 136 emails to people who signed Mr.Golder’s petition.The email we sent to these individuals was aimed at testing the legitimacy of the original petition –that is,did everyone who signed it understand exactly what they were supporting? The message we sent out to these 136 individuals from Mr.Golder’s petition said the following: “In the photos below you will see the renderings for a proposed project at 201 College Avenue in Ithaca.This survey is simply asking you to evaluate whether or not you think the project is an attractive addition to the market.”[photo of the project included here] “Are you opposed to the development of this project?” After sending out this survey to test the original group of people who signed the petition,we received 48 responses.Of these 48 responses,30%said that they were not opposed to the development of the project.In addition to showing support for the project,these respondents gave feedback that included the following: “I think that more housing options in college town would be good not only for the students but also for local businesses which would in turn help the city.” “I want this project to happen.” With one third of the survey results being refuted (from our sample set),we wanted to dive a little deeper and understand more about the community’s mindset regarding our project.As we read more about the petitions signees who did not support our project it became clear that their decision to sign was tainted and misguided from misinformation.They had been given certain information from Mr.Golder when signing the petition and they expressed that their support of him was misinformed.They were not signing the petition to “Save the Soul of Collegetown,”but rather were signing in sympathy of Mr.Golder,or in opposition to a particular aspect of the project that Mr.Golder felt victimized him,such as his solar panels being obstructed.The comments below were collected from these signees and illustrate their misinformed attitudes about the project. “The neighboring home to the left of 201 college ave is owned by a man who does not/will not convert into a large apartment building.The neighborhood will be ruined if these historical homes are torn down.” “I think this actually will really negatively affect the neighbors of this property and is completely unfair to go forward with without their full consent.” “We want bars.” “Be respectful of the neighboring houses who are not college students.” Comments like these paint the picture for how these signatures were collected.Was Mr.Golder objective and did he provided facts to the signees or was there misinformation given to signees?Did their support of him come out as sympathy and misdirected support for a project that they have not learned all the details about?We followed up this due diligence with a petition of our own to gauge the public’s true perception on the project. PETITION:IN SUPPORT OF In order to fully understand how this project was perceived in the marketplace we began our own petition.A copy of our petition can be seen in the APPENDIX.After administering the petition over a 10 day period we received more than 450 signatures in support of our project.In addition,we gave our signees an opportunity to comment on our e petition,leaving any thoughts they may have about the proposed project.Below is a recap of some of these comments: Anonymous Jul 18,2016 Great for the area Jackson Foo Jul 18,2016 This is a great idea Martha Taranto Jul 17,2016 This makes sense and will help keep downtown rents reasonable. Anonymous Jul 16,2016 The Cornell community needs more housing desperately! Daniel Keough Jul 16,2016 We have an extreme shortage of housing in Ithaca,more density in Collegetown and around the Commons is welcome.This development is a great plan. Kathy Jul 16,2016 Well thought out plans.Good to see more upscale housing!I support this project! Matthew Jul 16,2016 students need more options for housing.I definitely support this! Erik L Jul 16,2016 More beds always welcome Mike Perry Jul 15,2016 Finally there's a developer that actually cares about what the exterior of the building looks like! Tam lam Jul 15,2016 I think this is a great project! Bill Petrillose Jul 15,2016 I am in support of the project Anonymous Jul 15,2016 Much needed housing for college town. David West Jul 15,2016 good small scale urban building in a great location for incremental,walkable infill. Clinton Fox Jul 15,2016 Great idea Conan Cerretani Jul 15,2016 It will be a great building at the vanguard of an overall improvement in housing, business and entertainment in this neighborhood. Albert Budd 3rd Jul 15,2016 I am an electrical contractor who will be bidding on the project so I am all for making work and housing for the Ithaca area. Stephanie El Massri Jul 15,2016 Truly believe the builders are working to better the community and environment of Collegetown Kevin Lucas Jul 15,2016 for the sake of the town the building needs to be built its going to bring tax revenue for positive growth,it's a Beaitful structure that will stand the test of time,and here is already a housing issue for college students in the area. Rob Macherone Jul 15,2016 I support this development and the positive impact it will have on the community Tafari Jenkins Jul 15,2016 Development =progress Oleg Vasertriger Jul 15,2016 Finally a project that uses high quality materials!Building looks amazing! Dawn Potter Jul 15,2016 Great project great location! Chris Andrews Jul 15,2016 What a great addition to College town! Jeremy Wong Jul 15,2016 I believe we need more housing plus this is a really good looking place. Ahmed Khalaf Jul 15,2016 This is a great opportunity for our city.Please spread the word!! Ansel Acla Jul 15,2016 New Construction is good growth and positive for our community.Can't wait to see the finished product. As you can see from the above support,there is a large portion of the community that is strongly in favor of this project,and many more community members who support the project and simply did not have the opportunity to sign or comment. In the next section you will see another form of support expressed by community members on their own desire. FACEBOOK GROUP Mr.Golder,in his efforts to impede development,also set up a Facebook Page named “Save the Soul of Collegetown.”This group was aimed at gaining support for the halt of the 201 College Ave project.However,throughout the pages public input there are many people who publicly refute the efforts of the page,and show support for the ongoing development of the area.As you can see below,the screenshots taken are from individuals in the community who publicly spoke out in support of the project. Additionally,Mr.Golder has used his online presence to inaccurately portray our project and misinform the public about the “dangers”of development at 201 College Ave.Below is a screenshot from Mr.Golder’s Facebook page that misrepresents our project and displays it in a bad light for all the public to see. The image above is not an accurate rendering of the proposed project,but rather a poor representation of the beautiful architecture that is planned on that site.Objectivity is required to help give the community,a fair and accurate understanding of the development. In summation,we know that this project may bring about change in the area,but the overall change is doing a net positive good for the community,for both temporary and permanent residents.We’ve conducted the ethnographic research to best understand who it is we are affecting by building this project,and we understand that we have a responsibility to everyone involved to make our projects a positive addition to the community.We have made our commitment to continue working with everyone in the community to ensure that we can create projects that help,and leave a strong positive legacy. Thank you for taking time to review this. Todd Fox Visum Development Group APPENDIX 1 http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Collegetown In 1865,Ezra Cornell stated,while standing on East Hill overlooking the city of Ithaca,“We shall need every acre for the future necessary purposes of the university”(Morris Bishop,A History of Cornell (Ithaca 1962),p.70).Although many doubted him at the time,Cornell’s foresight was accurate,and over the past 150+years,the city of Ithaca and Cornell University have developed a synonymous relationship.As with any relationship,there have been both ups and downs –many times originating from the impact of one on the other. However,throughout this long history there has always been a common theme:both the university and city continue to grow and thrive together,bringing about change that is inevitable,yet beneficial. LOOKING TO COLLEGETOWN’S HISTORY The narratives presented in both “Remembering Ithaca,1930 1970”by Jessamine Kelsey Johnson,and “Ithaca Neighborhoods:the Rhine,the Hill,and the Goose Pasture”by Carol Sisler,are littered with stories about the ongoing redevelopment of the Collegetown area. From buildings being “razed”to make way for larger structures,to houses being divided to make room for renters,to Huestis Street being renamed “College Ave.”in 1909 Collegetown has always been defined by the symbiotic relationship between Cornell University and the neighboring community.The buildings of Collegetown are almost as transient as the students that inhabited them,forever changing,disappearing and being rebuilt in some new and larger fashion. In the images contained in Figures 1 –4 on the following pages,you can see the evolution of Collegetown from the early stages of farmland and community residents,to the current landscape of a flourishing community buzzing with the energy of an enthusiastic coexistence.This development is not anything new,and it is well documented in many books detailing the history of Ithaca.Another strong narrative that details the growth, development,and character of Collegetown is “Fraternity Row,the Student Ghetto, and the Faculty Enclave:Characteristic Residential Districts in the American College Town,” an academic paper written by UNH professor Blake Gumbrecht.Following Figures 1 –4,you can see some highlights of Collegetown’s redevelopment that began 150 years ago,and an overview of some relevant historical research regarding the history of Collegetown. 201 College Ave. Site Plan Review (submitted by applicant on 8/16/16) FIGURE 1 –COLLEGTOWN IN 1893 *Note:Huestis was renamed College Ave.in 1909.Hazen was renamed Linden around the same time. FIGURE 2 –COLLEGETOWN IN 1919 FIGURE 3 –COLLEGETOWN IN 1970 FIGURE 4 –COLLEGETOWN IN PRESENT DAY CASCADILLA HALL &EARLY REDEVELOPMENT The first major construction project to be built in Collegetown was one that towered about the existing farmland and cottages of the time period.However,this building,Cascadilla Hall,is now recognized as one of the most iconic and historically significant buildings attached to Cornell University and the Collegetown area.In the picture below,taken around 1850,the building is not surrounded by other large developments,but rather it was the first large structure erected in the area.Some may have remarked that this building was excessive or “out of place,”but it now represents the history of advancement and growth in a remarkable area. Cascadilla Hall is just one example of the development cycle that began a century ago.In the book “Ithaca’s Neighborhoods...”the author recalls many times when the development was not kindly looked upon.Even such buildings as Ezra Cornell’s gothic villa were poorly viewed by many during development.However,some had the foresight to see that these developments were necessary for both the utility of the people in the area,and the change that was coming.The excerpt below summarizes the development of Collegetown from the 1860s. “Besides Forest Park and Cascadilla,there was only one other outstanding structure on the hill in the early 1860s.To the south of Cascadilla stood a prominent mansion built in the 1830s by the Giles brothers of Ithaca.The house was built in two sections,one for each brother and his family,with a central area for the use of both families.(It became the home of Hiram Corson,Cornell's first professor of English;later it served as the manse for the Lutheran Church.)And by 1867 construction had begun on Ezra Cornell's Gothic villa,his only architectural extravagance (called Cornell's Folly by many),down the slope from Cornell University's first building and the future campus.For the rest,the hilltop was mostly farms and woods;there were only seven houses on Huestis Street (the present College Avenue).It was somewhat later that extensive construction began in Collegetown.”–Page 158 Even as Ezra Cornell pressed forward in developing the area around Cornell,the growth of the university outpaced that of the neighborhood.Collegetown has always been an integral part of Cornell University student life,and continuous redevelopment is absolutely necessary.In the two excerpts below you can understand the perspective of community members who witnessed this growth. “That first year,however,412 students were admitted,a group of true pioneers.The small institution grew rather rapidly,and both institution and village were ill prepared for this expansion.”– Page 159 “With only these few rooms and Cascadilla,Cornell housing was in very short supply,and there was much crowding.”–Page 159 Throughout this time period many people,including authors,took note of this rapid expansion.You can see examples of this littered throughout books written during the time, and many of these examples have been provided in the appendix of this document.One such author who closely documents this growth is Blake Gumprecht in his academic study of Cornell’s Collegetown. In his research paper,Gumprecht often refers to Collegetown as the “student ghetto,” citing the rapid pace at which housing needs outgrew safe reliable residences.With education being the main “industry”in Ithaca,Gumprecht outlines how education has shaped the urban landscape in Ithaca.Over the years housing has increased in demand while the inability to keep up with that demand has resulted in unsafe,poor quality,and unattractive housing being offered to the resident population.Throughout historical documents references are made to the irresponsible development of Collegetown,a few of which can be viewed below: 1899:“Collegetown was becoming,in every sense of the term,Ithaca’s student ghetto,and the status minded fraternities wanted no part of it.” 1899:“The Fraternity rejected all the Collegetown sites,dismissing one because of its proximity to ‘a number of cheap,unattractive buildings.’” 1890:The largest rooming houses were located along Heustis Street (now called College Ave),most of them,in the words of Cornell’s historian,“cheap,ugly,and hazardous.” 1912:Bishop wrote,“The quality of housing quickly deteriorated east of Eddy Street, an area he referred to as ‘The Great Rooming House Belt.’‘Rooms here are cheaper,’ he wrote,‘but as ever you must pay for cheapness.Many ...are small,bare,and insecure against the invasion of our famous February weather.’” 1913:A committee composed of students reported that most of the Heustis Street (College Ave)and Dryden Road rooming houses were “crowded”and many were “fire traps,”and recommended that the university begin regular inspection of the rooming houses. 1913:“Where the fraternity district was Cornell’s country club,Collegetown was its tenement district.” 1965:“Demand exceeded supply in the areas closest to campus,so rents rose. Because students were a captive market,landlords often did little to improve their properties.The situation grew so bad that in 1965 students put up tents on campus to protest poor housing conditions in Ithaca.Cornell implemented a detailed code for student rental housing and,in 1966,began requiring students to live in university approved housing.” 1969:“The Ithaca Tenants Union was formed;it called on Cornell to build more residential facilities on campus and pressured the city to strengthen its building codes and increase enforcement.Rent strikes became widespread.” 1972:“By this time,the housing stock in Collegetown had deteriorated.Little new housing had been built in a half century and existing housing was poorly maintained.” 1972:“The most run down buildings were fire and health hazards.‘It was dirty, cockroach infested,’said Sean Killeen,who represented the neighborhood on the Ithaca Common Council.” 1975:“A columnist in the Cornell student newspaper in 1975 lampooned the poor conditions of Collegetown housing,retelling the story of his search for a place to live. He visited one apartment on Eddy Street,which he described as ‘a street of singular charm and ugliness,punctuated by garbage cans and parking meters.’” Only recently has a push been made by both the city,the university,and the community to improve the housing available to everyone in Collegetown.Highlights from Gumprecht’s study,like some of the material viewed above,will be included throughout this review,with a full copy of the study provided as an accessory to this document. GROWTH BEGINS IN COLLEGETOWN Collegetown as we know it today (College Ave.,Dryden Road,Linden Ave.,Catherine St., Cook St.,etc.)began as farmland.Over time the demand for housing and the businesses serving students accompanying it helped grow the area into a bustling area of Ithaca.In the photo below you can see Catherine St.in 1900,with only a few houses. Another area in Collegetown that was under fast redevelopment was the top of College Ave.,going over the bridge from campus.Originally,the area between Dryden Road and College Ave.was inhabited by Willow Pond,a standing body of water that could be traversed by a wooden bridge.As the need for more development increased,the pond was eventually filled in. In the photo below you can see a picture of the east end of College Ave.taken around 1900. The building constructed by James Newman,at 407 College Ave.was originally a major development aimed at providing housing for students.During the time many were up in arms about the development of the building and its design.However,this structure provided a valuable service to the area and the design style eventually came to define the architecture of the era,which can be seen in the design of the neighboring,and now historic,Grandview House. According to local historians this area was rapidly growing,“Across the wooden bridge that linked campus and village was a growing community.”(Page 163).In another excerpt you can understand the magnitude of this development and the positive impact it was having on the community. “Thus,before the turn of the century,Collegetown had developed into a bustling community.Just across the bridge small businesses sprang up to serve the student population:barbershops,food markets,restaurants,bookstores,pharmacies,a saddler and harness shop,and shoemakers,to name a few.”–Page 167 As the time changed,so did the methods of creation.By 1900 Collegetown had become an area that was focused on students meshing with the local community,and they drove the development of the area.Businesses and rooming became the priority and since then it has only adopted to fit the growing need.However,throughout this time,it has been created symbiotically through the community,the city,and the university. In Gumprecht’s study he cites the major differences between the types of educational housing.The housing and developments have always coincided with the community’s needs as Collegetown and its character are vastly different from the areas that house faculty and professors,such as Cayuga Heights and Bryant Park.Over the last 100 years the Collegetown area has been focused on students,and it has been allowed to maintain this focus because of the other housing options available to individuals who do not desire to live in Collegetown.Unfortunately this has caused some issues with the development in Collegetown being subpar –with predominantly transient renters –but this issue has been prevalent for too long and is now being handled.Gumprecht describes how the character of the neighborhood is important to maintain,but it is mainly a factor of the people living there.Allowing “ghettos”to develop with poor housing conditions is not recommended, and only places further constraints on the community,city,and university.Luckily, developments like 201 College Ave are seeking to remedy the issue by providing well maintained,high quality,and attractive housing in the area. THE CHARACTER OF COLLEGETOWN The character of a neighborhood can be defined as the “look and feel”of that neighborhood as influenced by both the physical characteristics (of community members and the structures that exist),and the nonphysical characteristics (people,energy,attitudes, etc.).Each neighborhood can be said to have its own character,as the people who live and work there influence the way it changes over time.Here in Ithaca,the character of the Collegetown neighborhood is a character of education that is centered on change. Throughout the neighborhoods history it has always been changing and adapting to meet the needs of the locals and the incoming students who depend on it.Current mayor,Svante Myrick,was once observed discussing this very character,and he summed it up accurately: “Myrick argues that,like it or not,change has always been part of the neighborhood's essential character.‘I'd be tempted to say, ‘This isn't your father's Collegetown,’’he says.‘But it's not even your upperclassman's Collegetown.The truth is,no two classes at Cornell have had the same Collegetown experience.’” In the late 1800s,Collegetown was farmland.It was inhabited by farmers and their animals and used to sustain their lifestyles.Around 1900 Collegetown became an accessory to the growing Cornell University.Farmers and families saw the opportunity to rent extra rooms to students,and students sought out local products for purchase.As these two groups, students and locals,began to comingle,the Collegetown area expressed that.As time went on,more boarding houses popped up and farmland was converted to higher density housing and businesses.Families recognized the opportunity that students presented,and used this to promote growth within the community. Collegetown,1882 As we progressed into the 1920s,the small cottages of the old days became mid rises and more students flooded the area,looking for both housing and places to spend their time and money.This trend increased over time,as more students arrived and Collegetown expanded its boundaries.Larger buildings were built,public transportation was implemented,and new materials were used to create safer places of living. As we approached the late 20th century,everything began to change more rapidly.Bars, restaurants,grocery stores,service providers,and retail stores filled the open areas of Collegetown,and students rented from campus all the way to State Street.The hill was full of students and local businesses,and families in nearby neighborhoods thrived off their presence.Cars were more popular and parking lots took priority over single family residences.No longer was the farmer a popular resident,but now it became the student. As we look at Collegetown today we can see this continued development,but it is needed now more than ever.The new buildings and improvements of 20 years ago are no longer adequate.As the university grows faster than the housing supply,new residences are needed every day.Residences of quality,that are safe and affordable,that is what this next era of development requires.This means change is inevitable,but if this change can continue to honor the character of the neighborhood and help meet the various needs of community members,then we must usher it in as the next phase in the Collegetown life cycle. A Single Family home on the corner of College Ave and Dryden,today is a 5 story mixed use student rental building.Far right hand corner. Another angle showing the single family home on the North East corner of College Ave and Dryden Rd. At the turn of the century,Dryden Rd was rooming houses.Those houses were demolished to make way for commercial buildings and mixed use.Today,the street is lined with large student housing developments. Gumprecht cites that although the change throughout Ithaca,and in Collegetown,is often unpredictable,there are some overarching factors that are consistent.First,Collegetown continues to grow aggressively.Second,it has been,and will continue to be,a community centered on student life.Over the past century there have been ebbs and flows in this development but the demand remains.Students will continue to flock to the area,allowing the local economy to thrive,and with each new arrival,adequate housing will be needed. This becomes the responsibility of the city,the university,the community,and the developers who look to make a strong positive impact on the Collegetown community. Change in this area is inevitable,and as time progresses,the decisions we work together to make will be to ensure that future students are welcomed to the community so that they can continue to help our city grow in a positive way.Developing this area responsibly will help us welcome them with adequate housing,rather than allowing the area to become an unkempt ghetto that is a problem for everyone. DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW While attempting to understand the full perspective on the development of Collegetown,it is important to note that it has been largely influenced by the people who have continually inhabited its limits.Forbes once wrote that the number one most identifying characteristic of a neighborhood is its demographics.Demographics are defined as the population of an area and the groups that make up this population.As we know,Collegetown has been an ongoing organic development,dominated by students and their demand for housing.Over the years,this student population has remained but their identifying characteristics have varied.As written by Gumprecht,“The Soul of Collegetown has always and will always be the students of Cornell University and their ever changing tastes and interests.” ~1850:Collegetown does not even remotely resemble a Collegetown at this point.It is entirely farmland and factory,owned and run by the Cornell’s and the Eddy’s. ~1880:Collegetown is still dominated by farmland and local families.A few main families have moved into the area and tend to their local farms.As the university grows it pushes on the community outskirts,but the residents are still largely “non student.”Service to the university is minimal and although Ezra Cornell’s family inhabits Collegetown,they have not comingled with the university students –who live on campus or locally. ~1900:Collegetown continues to grow,but with single family homes and the additional rentals provided by farming families.The university has already outgrown its quarters and more structures have been built in Collegetown,with the farmland and factories almost entirely gone.Families continue to build residences on former farmland,and rent their spare rooms to students who have outgrown campus.Some boarding houses sponsored by the university begin to emerge for male students,as female students are almost all housed on campus. ~1920:Collegetown grows as the university grows,and locals seize the opportunity for extra income by renting to students and selling their goods.Although the area is growing,proper planning has not taken place,as Morris Bishop describes the area at the time,“Collegetown housed those students who were at the bottom of the Cornell ‘caste system.’They are a vast plebian mass,the independents,the outsiders, the pills,the poops,the drips.”With wealthier students living on campus or in their fraternities,Collegetown grows with need,and caters to those at the bottom. ~1940:Collegetown begins its first rapid growth phase.Student population explodes as post war incomes increase,and the military seek education.Rooming houses are no more,as the demand for larger structures puts pressure on the community. Markets thrive with the business of incoming scholars,and the streets begin to hum with the introduction of students with cars.Single family homes are almost entirely converted to rooming houses,if they aren’t torn down for larger developments first. As Gumprecht writes,“The lifestyle differences between students and older adults also pushed families out.Block by block,Collegetown turned from a mixed neighborhood into a student dominated district.” ~1950:Collegetown becomes the center of student counterculture,reaching what one writer describes as its “Golden Age.”Collegetown is a city of youth with undergraduates covering every inch of real estate.“Non students”are virtually extinct in the area,as they have been pushed out and inhabit nearby areas that better meet their needs.One contemporary observer wrote,“[Collegetown]is,and always has been,the fertile soil in this area for writing,partying,rioting,speech making,and messing up and getting off.” ~1960:Collegetown continues to grow,most notably in female population.Between 1965 and 1975,female population proportions at the university double.With the increase in female students,and the attitudes of the time demanding female rights and student power,universities no longer force female students to live on campus. Collegetown explodes with the need for more housing,accompanied by demands for better rentals that are safer.Building codes and city regulations are under more scrutiny as housing is assembled for quantity rather than quality. ~1970:Gumprecht writes,“In the early seventies,a ‘wave of heroin’arrived in Collegetown and the mood began to sour.In 1971,a reputed drug dealer was murdered in a Collegetown parking lot.Junkies ruled the streets,according to one writer.The grassy slope behind Cascadilla Place became the favored spot to smoke marijuana.Drug deals ‘were going on all the time’on Eddy Street.LSD was commonplace,with hangers on ‘laying hits’on anyone who walked by.”The mixed gender population grows,mid size buildings become commonplace,and the streets are filled. ~1980:Collegetown begins to come down from the “drug wave”of past,but the population continues to swell.Population density is comparable to Brooklyn or San Francisco at the same time.Almost everyone is a student,and almost everyone is renting.Gumprecht writes,“anyone over 30 stands out.”The ground level is packed with bars and restaurants that seem to always be filled,as the area expresses its own culture of undergraduates who finally have the freedom of living on their own. Parking lots inhabit land that was formerly single family homes,and older parking lots are removed to make way for high rises. ~2000:Collegetown is increasingly Asian,reflecting a rise in the enrollment of Asian students at Cornell since 1980.Asians made up 30 percent of the neighborhood’s population in 2000,a proportion three times higher than twenty years before.Bars are still prevalent,but many have been replaced with mixed use buildings that meet the demand for housing.Single family homes are entirely replete as almost every accommodation from campus to State St.is used for renting.City officials have become more involved in the development of the area with tighter regulations on safety codes and public behavior. Over the course of Collegetown’s development,the demographics have been changing as rapidly as the streetscape.As the populations grows and shifts,so does the physical landscape.Collegetown has been and forever will be its own culture for students and the preferences they exhibit. CHANGE OVER TIME As noted by Carol Sisler in her book,Collegetown has always been changing to meet the needs of the university and the community it neighbors.Although some changes have been welcomed,and others argued against,the changes continue to drive a growing community that represents a major part of Ithaca.In her book,Sisler writes about having to remove trees to make way for wider roads,raze old buildings to make room for larger ones,and change the way things are built to improve the health and safety of those living nearby. Although these changes may seem temporarily dramatic,they are all a part of the larger picture and represent progress,growth,and success for our city and community. Collegetown continues to evolve both through its tangible and intangible form. ***** For a closer look into these historical excerpts and references,all relevant material has been clipped and added to the appendix at the end of this document. We also encourage you to read the research narrative by Blake Gumprecht which chronicles the Collegetown’s development throughout history. APPENDIX BOOK:Remembering Ithaca o Talking about how Ithacans made ends meet during the Depression Days To make ends meet they began to “rent a room or two.” Page 4,Remembering Ithaca “As the depression waned,many people divided up their large homes into apartments and rented them out to college people.” Page 6 o Talking about redevelopment of the area “Opposite this on Seneca Street,facing North Cayuga,once stood a tall, Victorian brick house belonging to the Federation of Women’s Clubs of Ithaca.It had served well as a rooming house for working girls,as a meeting place for groups and for suppers.In the basement was a second kitchen and rooms for dancing classes,nursery school or other similar purposes.In time,this facility had outgrown its usefulness:larger quarters were badly needed.” Page 13 o Talking about the rapid growth and development “Before long,many changes began in the center of town.As soon as cars became numerous,after the second World War,parking became a problem;parking meters were placed along the main streets and were followed by “meter maids”in uniform to check periodically and hand out tickets.A few new businesses sprang up,but a shopping plaza on the Elmira Road near Meadow Street took some of it.Supermarkets began to replace the small corner store.” Page 10 “For many years Ithaca College students just about filled all downtown streets at times,eating places and movies as well.Residents took them for granted and businessmen welcomed their trade.” Pages 14 and 15 “The west end of town has gradually undergone many changes –nearly all the old houses on West State Street are gone,except a few used for businesses.” Page 16 o Talking about Collegetown “But bookstores and small shops catering to student needs continue as do nearby rooming houses.” Page 19 “Housing for young and old are still a problem.New home building grew fairly rapidly in all directions until interest rates began to soar along with taxes,and as the 70’s approached building seemed at a standstill...“ Page 20 BOOK:Ithaca’s Neighborhoods o Picture of Cascadilla Hall Page 157 o “The area now occupied by the university was part of DeWitt's holdings,and the farmland was cleared early.It was grown to wheat in 18 12,then was turned back to timber.The lower slope became a pasture.” Page 157 o “’You see on the hill east of the village a small group of buildings consisting of a cotton factory,a store,and about twenty dwelling houses,which,for the sake of distinction,we shall call Eddy's Villa.In both buildings there are altogether 1600 spindles which turn out 1000 yards of cotton daily.There are seventeen families attached to these mills,[p.7].’Thus the area we now call Collegetown was settled very early.” Solomon Southwick quote,page 158 o “Besides Forest Park and Cascadilla,there was only one other outstanding structure on the hill in the early 1860s.To the south of Cascadilla stood a prominent mansion built in the 1830s by the Giles brothers of Ithaca.The house was built in two sections,one for each brother and his family,with a central area for the use of both families.(It became the home of Hiram Corson,Cornell's first professor of English;later it served as the manse for the Lutheran Church.)And by 1867 construction had begun on Ezra Cornell's Gothic villa,his only architectural extravagance (called Cornell's Folly by many),down the slope from Cornell University's first building and the future campus.For the rest,the hilltop was mostly farms and woods;there were only seven houses on Huestis Street (the present College Avenue).It was somewhat later that extensive construction began in Collegetown.” Page 158 o “That first year,however,412 students were admitted,a group of true pioneers. The small institution grew rather rapidly,and both institution and village were ill prepared for this expansion.” Page 159 o “With only these few rooms and Cascadilla,Cornell housing was in very short supply,and there was much crowding.” Page 159 o “By 1889 almost all the men students were lodged in rooming houses on the hill and down in the newly incorporated city of Ithaca.A few roomed in the faculty cottages.Several makeshift shacks probably stood on the campus,put up by students who could not afford other lodging.” Page 162 o “Across the wooden bridge that linked campus and village was a growing community.” Page 163 o “To the west of the wooden bridge were Cascadilla and its neighboring mansion, called Corson Place by its owner,Hiram Corson.In the area bounded by Eddy Street to the west,the gorge to the north,Hazen Street (Linden Avenue today) to the east,and State Street to the south were fifty nine residences,including two fraternity houses (one on Eddy and one on Huestis Street).Huestis Street, which in 1909 was given the name of College Avenue,was named for Lorenzo Scott Huestis (sometimes spelled Heustis),a gardener and farmer who had a large house and piece of land opposite present day Catherine Street.The Cook family owned a wide tract between Eddy and Huestis streets and used part of their property for several large greenhouses (Cook was listed in the city directory as florist and speculator).Ezra Cornell's son Franklin owned the entire area between Eddy,State,Blair,and Catherine streets (this last named for one of the Cook daughters),and his daughter Mary Emily held two pieces at the top of Eddy Street.” Page 164 o Picture of Catherine Street Page 165 o Picture of Eddy Street Page 166 o “In May 1895 the Ithaca Journal reported that university and local authorities had reached an agreement to fill up Willow Pond and to extend Huestis Street and Oak Avenue.” Page 166 o “Thus,before the turn of the century,Collegetown had developed into a bustling community.Just across the bridge small businesses sprang up to serve the student population:barbershops,food markets,restaurants,bookstores, pharmacies,a saddler and harness shop,and shoemakers,to name a few.” Page 167 o “In the 1890s homeowners of the area were providing housing for many Cornell students,as they have continued to do through the years.By this time Huestis Street was already lined with large houses,designed to accommodate students. On the east side of the street between the pond and Dryden Road were four frame houses,with tall basements for student lodgings and long flights of steps up to the main entrance.Builders favored large houses,complete with towers, which not only provided many student rooms but presented a grandiose appearance.By the early twentieth century these four houses alone accommodated almost sixty student roomers,plus proprietors,janitors,cooks, and servants.” Page 167 o Picture of College Ave. Page 168 o “The old wooden rooming houses on College Avenue were also replaced by a more solid structure of concrete.” Page 169 o “In the first half of the twentieth century Collegetown did not change a great deal.The area nearest the campus provided shops and services for the students. All the way up the hill to the No.9 Fire Station on College Avenue were private houses;toward the campus there were many large and small rooming houses, with apartments rented by students and lower level faculty.College Avenue was still a narrow street,lined with large shade trees;it did not take on a different appearance until after World War II,when it was widened and most of the trees were removed.” Page 170 o “Collegetown has taken on a new look in the 1980s.Despite confusion,delays, and considerable disruption,the streets are being improved,the Cascadilla dorms and Sheldon Court have been renovated by the university,and the new parking garage and apartment complex have been completed.After the student unrest in the late 1960s,when events on the Cornell campus shook not only the university's neighbors but the entire world;after riots in Collegetown when a permit for a block party was turned down;after scenes of spaced out drug users,the 1980s have brought a cleaner,brighter aspect to the area.The main streets now display new store fronts,brick trimmed sidewalks,park benches,both new and old businesses concerned with maintaining an attractive appearance.The Collegetown Neighborhood Council,established to bring a political organization to the area,has put out a "Good Neighbor Hand book"that gives a short history of the area and provides newcomers with important information about landlord/tenant relations,parking regulations,fire safety,and crime prevention. And in observance of the Ithaca centennial year,the council has sponsored cleanup days to aid in beautification of the neighborhood.In the spirit of friendship and local pride,local residents,both permanent and transient,are being urged to help work toward a better neighborhood.Collegetown now anticipates the refurbishing of the Eddy Gate,the repaving of Eddy Street and the addition of brick trim,and continued commercial revitalization.And what could be more exciting than the new university building,rising on the boundary of the campus and Collegetown,just to the east of Cornell's first home,Cascadilla Hall. The Center for the Performing Arts will open in Ithaca's centennial year,offering a new resource for all Ithacans and a beautiful tribute to the shared history of the university and Collegetown neighborhoods.” Page 175 10.1177/0096144205281664 ARTICLE JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / January 2006Gumprecht / RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN COLLEGE TOWNS FRATERNITY ROW, THE STUDENT GHETTO, AND THE FACULTY ENCLAVE Characteristic Residential Districts in the American College Town BLAKE GUMPRECHT University of New Hampshire The unusual demographic characteristics of college towns, and the social differences that exist within stu- dentpopulations,haveledtotheemergenceincollegecommunitiesofseveraldistinctivetypesofresidential districts.UsingIthaca,NewYork,asanexample,thisstudyexaminestheoriginsandevolutionofthreesuch districts—theGreek-housingdistrictsometimescalled“fraternityrow,”thestudentrentalareaoftenknown as the student ghetto, and the faculty enclave. Together such districts help to make the American college town a unique type of urban place. Keywords:college towns; neighborhoods; housing; residential segregation The hundreds of college towns in the United States are, in essence, an aca- demic archipelago. 1 Similar to one another, they often differ in several impor- tantwaysfromothercitiesandtheregionsinwhichtheyarelocated.Themost fundamentaldifferenceisdemographicandisareflectionofthefactthatmany collegetownsaresingle-industrycommunitieswhosemainbusinessiseduca- tion. The annual migration of new students to campuses means college town populations are forever young. The need for faculty and administrators, and the presence of graduate students, mean that college town populations are more highly educated than the general populace.2 The lopsided demographics of college communities help explain their dis- tinctive personalities. College town commercial areas reflect the ever-chang- ing tastes of youth and the nonmainstream orientation of many professors. Faculty and students tend to be more cosmopolitan than the population at 231 AUTHOR’S NOTE:The author thanks Martha Armstrong, Leslie Chatterton, Scott Conroe, Jane Dieckmann, William Fogle, Ken Growney, Margaret Hobbie, Carol Kammen, Chris Koza, John Marcham, Howie Schaffer, John Schroeder, Carole Schiffman, Carol Sisler, and Mary Tomlan for their help with this research;allIthacaresidentspastandpresentIinterviewedforthisstudy;WilliamDeverell,JohnHudson, Peirce Lewis, PaulMattingly, andRick Musser for their support;three anonymousreviewers for their com- ments andsuggestions; andthe GrahamFoundationfor AdvancedStudiesin the Fine Arts, which provided funding for this research. JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY, Vol. 32 No. 2, January 2006 231-273 DOI: 10.1177/0096144205281664 © 2006 Sage Publications 201 College Ave. Site Plan Review (submitted by applicant on 8/16/16) NOTE: This document is being distributed electronically only. large, so college towns often act as regional centers of culture. Professors and studentshavebeenshowntobemorepoliticallyliberalthanthegeneralpopu- lation, which has caused some college towns to develop reputations for social activism and progressive politics. 3 But perhaps the most conspicuous influ- enceofyouthanderuditionisevidentinthecharacterofthecollegetownresi- dential landscape. The presence of unusual concentrations of students and highly educated adults, and the social differences that exist within college communities, have led to the emergence in college towns of distinctive types of residential neighborhoods. Collegetownsarehighlysegregatedresidentially.Collegefacultyandother permanent residents seldom want to live near undergraduates because of the different lifestyles they often lead. For students, the college years represent their first chance to live relatively free from adult interference, so they, too, prefertoliveamongtheirown.Dissimilaritieswithinthestudentbodycontrib- ute still further to residential differences within college towns. Although fac- ulty are less concentrated residentially than students, they too have shown a tendency to cluster. This study will identify and describe three types of resi- dential districts common to college towns that are a function of their unusual age and education characteristics—the Greek-housing district sometimes called “fraternity row,” the student rental district often known as the student ghetto,andthefacultyenclave.Inordertobetterunderstandwhysuchdistricts develop and how they have changed over time, I will examine the origin and evolution of examples of each in a single college town, Ithaca, New York.4 Ithacaishometotwofour-yearcolleges,CornellUniversityandIthacaCol- lege. This study will focus on residential districts near Cornell because its impact has been more conspicuous than its younger and smaller neighbor. Cornellwasfoundedin1868,itscampuslaidoutatopaplateauthatoverlooks the city and Cayuga Lake. Growing quickly to become one of the largest and most prestigious private universities in the United States, Cornell has come to exert a profound impact citywide. The influence of Ithaca College is more localizedandlesspronounced.Foundedin1892astheIthacaConservatoryof Music, it did not offer bachelor’s degrees until 1926. For most of its history, it lackedacohesivecampus,itsfacilitiesscatteredthroughoutdowntownIthaca. It did not develop its current campus on what is known locally as South Hill until the 1960s. Like other private, undergraduate-oriented, liberal arts col- leges,IthacaCollegehousesthemajorityofitsstudentsoncampusandhasno off-campusfraternities,whichlimitsitsresidentialimpact.IthacaCollegefac- ulty,moreover,seemaslikelytolivenearCornell asIthacaCollege,drawnby the greater campus amenities of a research university.5 Like other college towns in the longest-settled parts of the United States, Ithaca has come to be more strongly influenced by its colleges over the years. WhenCornellwasfounded,Ithacawasagrowingmanufacturingtown.Bythe turn of the twentieth century, its factories made boats, glass, pianos, guns, clocks, paper, and typewriters. In the early 1900s, factories were developed 232 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / January 2006 that made adding machines, bicycle chains, airplanes, and later, automobile parts.6 After World War II, however, college enrollments grew rapidly and manufacturing’s share of employment steadily declined, with most of the city’s old-line industries eventually closing. 7 Students and faculty came to make up an increasing share of Ithaca’s population. Today, education is over- whelming Ithaca’s biggest “industry.” Cornell and Ithaca College together employmorethan11,500peopleinthecityandnearlyhalfofthelaborforcein 2000 worked in education, compared to 3.5 percent in manufacturing. Since 1960, combined enrollment at Cornell and Ithaca College has doubled to nearly 26,000, while the city’s population has remained about the same. In 2000, fifty-five percent of the city’s residents were college students. As Ithaca’s colleges have grown, the housing needs of students and faculty have increasingly shaped the city’s urban landscape.8 FRATERNITY ROW At noncommuter colleges, undergraduates are normally required or strongly encouraged to live in university-owned residence halls for at least theirfreshmanyear.Afterfreshmanyear,studentsbegintosortthemselvesout accordingtotheirinterestsandlifestyles.Awayfromhomeandperhapslostin auniversitymanytimeslargerthantheirhighschool,somechoosetopostpone independence and formalize their social lives by joining a fraternity or sorority. In most college towns, fraternity and sorority houses are concentrated in one or two areas. Often, several line a single street, which is typically called “frater- nity row.” Examples include Webster Avenue in Hanover, New Hampshire; Dubuque Street in Iowa City; and Colorado Street in Pullman, Washington. With their classical or Greek-revival mansions and the unusual traditions andactivesociallivesofthepeoplewholiveinthem,thefraternitydistrictisa landscape unique to college communities. Raucous parties pour from frater- nity houses most every weekend during the school year. Pledge week rituals, formal dances, and the building of homecoming floats are local spectacles. Fraternity houses can make bad neighbors, which helps explain why they are often concentrated and located apart from other residential areas. Contrary to popular perception, fraternity houses at most universities are privately owned and located off campus. 9 While most Greek organizations voluntarily submit to regulation by universities, college officials do not exert the same degree of control over them that they do over on-campus residence halls. Although membership in Greek letter societies is declining and some elite private colleges, such as Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts, have abolished their Greek systems altogether, fraternities and sororities remainanintegralpartofstudentlifeinmostcollegetowns.Atlargestateuni- versities,typically one-quarter toone-half ofundergraduatespledge. Atsome private colleges, such as DePauw University in Greencastle, Indiana, three- Gumprecht / RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN COLLEGE TOWNS 233 quarters of undergraduates join. 10 While fraternities and sororities have long been criticized for their elitist (and sometimes bigoted) selection processes, dangeroushazingrituals,cliquishbehavior,excessivedrinking,andanti-intel- lectualattitudes—indeed,itishardtofindnoncriticalaccountsofGreeklife— theycanserveausefulpurposeforstudentswhorequiregreatersocialinterac- tion.11 “For a certain kind of boy at a certain tender age, fraternity is simply a given,” wrote the novelist Richard Ford, who pledged Sigma Chi at Michigan StateUniversity.“Ago-alongguy,whowantsfriends.Aguywithstandardshe can’tunderstand. Forthiskind ofboyconformity isagodsend. AndIwasthat kind of boy.”12 Ithaca does not possess a single fraternity district or fraternity row, as do some college towns. Most fraternities and sororities are located on the west side of the Cornell campus or in one of two suburban areas north of campus, Cornell Heights and Cayuga Heights (Figure 1). The Greek houses north of campus are relatively spread out and interspersed with single-family homes. ThisstudywillfocusontheWestCampusGreekhousingdistrict,sincefrater- nity houses are more concentrated and conspicuous here than elsewhere, and becausetheareahasbeenhometofraternitiesforthelongestperiod.TheWest Campus area is home to twenty-five fraternity houses and one sorority house (Figure 2). Most of the houses were built in the late 1800s or early 1900s. Manyhavebeenoccupiedbythesameorganizationforacenturyormore.The majority of Cornell’s most elite fraternities are located in this area. Most of Cornell’s sororities are located north of campus, and thus outside the focus area, because they developed later. Fraternitieswereanoutgrowthofthecampusliterarysocietiesthatemerged oncollegecampusesinthelate1700sinresponsetotheconservativenatureof higher education at the time. Most colleges were religiously oriented and had classical curricula that emphasized memorization and recitation. It was in the literary societies that students found an environment that nurtured free intel- lectual inquiry. Literary societies sponsored debates on the issues of the day and built libraries that often surpassed college book collections in size and scope. The first fraternity established in the United States, Phi Beta Kappa in 1776, was also intellectual in its purpose, but from the beginning fraternities also had a social component. As colleges liberalized their curricula and took over some of the functions of literary societies, the purpose of fraternities became chiefly social.13 BythetimeCornellUniversityopenedin1868,fraternitieshadreplacedthe literarysocietiesinimportanceonmostcollegecampusesandhadlargelyfor- saken their intellectual roots. They had becomegentleman’sclubs that sought only the most urbane young men for membership. They provided fellowship and institutionalized the long-standing college traditions of drinking, smok- ing,cardplaying,andsinging.Theygrew,inthewordsofthehistorianFreder- ick Rudolph, because they “offered an escape from the monotony, dreariness, 234 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / January 2006 Gumprecht / RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN COLLEGE TOWNS 235 Bryant Park Collegetown Cayuga Heights Ithaca Commons Cornell Heights Downtown Ithaca Renwick West Campus Greek Housing District Cayuga Lake Cornell University DrydenRd College AveEddy StEast Buffalo St State St BntAvryaeStewartAveTharierppmmRdHanshawRdCayuaggiHehtsRdUnivverstyAieNorth CayugaSt13 34 FalC l reek Cascadilla Cr e ek SixMile Cr eekMiles 0 0.25 BG04 Figure 1: Map of Ithaca, New York, and vicinity showing the Greek housing district, the Collegetown student rental housing area, and the faculty enclaves, Cayuga Heights and Bryant Park. SOURCE: Map by the author. and unpleasantness of the collegiate regimen.” Cornell welcomed fraternities fromthestart.Itsfirstpresident,AndrewDicksonWhite,hadbeenafraternity manatHobartandYale,andhespokepublicly aboutthevirtuesoffraternities on numerous occasions, arguing that they encouraged responsibility on the 236 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / January 2006 Alpha Tau Omega Cornell University Alpha Sigma Phi Sigma Nu Alpha Delta Phi Phi Gamma Delta Lambda Upsilon Lambda Sigma Phi Epsilon Sigma Pi Sigma Alpha Epsilon Phi Sigma Kappa Kappa Sigma Omega Tau Sigma Chi Psi West Campus Dormitories Delta Phi Psi Upsilon Sigma Phi Phi Kappa Psi Delta Tau Delta Alpha Omicron Pi Delta Upsilon Kappa Alpha Theta Pi Kappa Alpha Chi Phi Lambda Chi Alpha Delta Kappa Epsilon Theta Delta Chi Collegetown Cornell HeightsFallCreek Ca s c a d i l l a Creek Stewart AvenueUniversity Avenue West AvenueC a m p u sA venueClogleeAvenueBG04 West Campus Greek HousingDistrict Ithaca,New York Fraternity or sorority Cornell residential facility Other Cornell buildings Feet 0 100 Figure 2: Ithaca’sWestCampusGreekhousingdistrictishometotwenty-fivefraternities and one sorority. SOURCE: Map by the author. part of their members and calling them “the best substitute possible for the family relation.” In Cornell’s first year, seven fraternities were founded.14 Fraternities have long served an important housing function at American universities such as Cornell, which opposed the construction of dormitories initially.Whitewasadamantinhisbeliefthatstudentswouldbebetterhoused inprivatehomesorfraternities,sayingthatdormitorieswerebreedinggrounds for “carelessness, uproar, and destruction.” Still, the Cornell campus in its early years was isolated from the main part of Ithaca, sitting atop a steep hill thatremainsadifficultclimbeveningoodweather.Asaconsequence,theuni- versity had little choice but to provide rooms for students and faculty at first. As new classroom buildings were constructed, rooms were set aside for stu- dent residences, but as the demand for educational facilities grew, these were gradually eliminated. Thefirstdormitory for menwasnot built until 1914. As a result, fraternities came to house an increasing portion of undergraduate men.15 Sororitiesdevelopedlater,buthaveneverbeenasnumerousasfraterni- tiesbecauseCornellwasanoverwhelminglymaleinstitutionduringtheprime period of Greek society development in the late 1800s and early 1900s. 16 Female students were so outnumbered that fraternities regularly bused in coedsfromnearbywomen’scollegesforbigpartyweekendsuntilthe1960s. Cornell’sfirstfraternitiesrentedmeetingroomsabovebusinessesindown- townIthaca.ThenewlyfoundedPsiUpsilonbecamethefirstfraternitytohave itsownhouseandtolocateneartheCornellcampuswhenitrentedatwo-story structurein1876atthecornerofBuffaloandQuarrystreetsinaneighborhood thatbecameknownasCollegetown(seeFigure1).Thenextyear,DeltaKappa Epsilon rented a house nearby. In 1878, Alpha Delta Phi became the first fra- ternity to build its own chapter house in the area. One by one, fraternities migrated from downtown up the steep hill, East Hill, which separatesIthaca’s central business district from the Cornell campus. The steady migration of Greeks reflected a general shift in student housing. In time, however, ani- mosity between the Greeks and independents, as non-Greeks were known, prompted most fraternities to relocate.17 The story of the Cornell chapter of Alpha Delta Phi is useful in helping to understandwhythisgeographicshifttookplaceandhowseparateGreekhous- ingdistrictsemergeincollegetowns.AlphaDeltaPhiwasthefourthfraternity charteredatCornell.Shortlyafteritsfoundingin1868,membersrentedrooms in downtown Ithaca, near those of several other fraternities. Soon after Psi UpsilonandDeltaKappaEpsilonrentedhousesnearcampus,alumniofAlpha DeltaPhiraised$12,000tobuildahouseandpurchasedalotonBuffaloStreet about halfway up East Hill. The lot was ideally situated because at the time, most Cornell students lived downtown and walked up Buffalo Street to cam- pus,passingbytheAlphaDeltaPhihouse.Thetwo-story,brickchapterhouse was completed in 1878 and provided housing for sixteen brothers.18 Three developments shifted the geographic focus of fraternity life and spurred Alpha Delta Phi to seek a new home. In 1881, Cornell began the Gumprecht / RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN COLLEGE TOWNS 237 practice of allowing fraternities to lease land on campus to build chapter houses. Then, in 1888, a bridge was built at Stewart Avenue over Cascadilla Creek, which separates the Collegetown neighborhood from Cornell, encour- agingthedevelopmentoffraternityhousesonthewestsideofcampus.Within a few years, three fraternity houses were built on the central campus (see Fig- ure 3) and several more were constructed on the west side, some on campus lots, others on privately owned parcels. Finally, in 1893, a street railway was built from downtown to campus along State Street, eliminating most of the pedestriantrafficthathadpassedinfrontoftheAlphaDeltaPhihouseonBuf- falo Street. 19 These changes served to isolate Alpha Delta Phi. “Buffalo Street ...isnowquite deserted,” wrote the fraternity’s alumni secretary in 1900, “and for some years the chapter has labored under the disadvantage of being out of the direct line and a considerable distance from the center of stu- dentlife.”20 ThemigrationofindependentstoroominghousesinCollegetown, meanwhile, spurred an exodus of Greeks from the neighborhood. In 1893, AlphaDeltaPhihadbeenoneofthirteenfraternitiesinthearea.By1900,only three remained.21 ThoughAlphaDeltaPhiwasthefirstfraternitytobuilditsownhouse,inthe intervening twenty years it had become run down and was smaller and less 238 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / January 2006 Figure 3: Kappa Alpha chapter house, completed in 1887, one of several fraternity houses built on the Cornell campus on land leased from the university. SOURCE:ArchivePhotographCollection,No.13-6-2497,DivisionofRareandManuscriptCollec- tions, Cornell University Library. Used with permission. opulent than several newer fraternity houses. If Alpha Delta Phi was to com- peteforthemostsought-afterpledgesandretainitsprominenceincampuslife, itneededanewhouseinanewlocation.In1899,thefraternity’salumniboard appointed a committee to consider its options. 22 By this time, Cornell was undercontrolofanewpresident,JacobGouldSchurmann,whowascriticalof the Greek system and discontinued the practice of granting fraternities leases of campus land. Without the option of building on campus, Alpha Delta Phi considered four sites for a new house, three in Collegetown and one on the west side of campus. Indicative of the growing divide between Greeks and independents, it rejected all the Collegetown sites, dismissing one because of its proximity to “a number of cheap, unattractive buildings” and another, locatednearseveralrooming housesonHeustisStreet(nowCollegeAvenue), because “it has a Heustis Street atmosphere as distinguished from a campus atmosphere.”23 Collegetownwasbecoming,ineverysenseoftheterm,Ithaca’s student ghetto, and the status-minded fraternities wanted no part of it. Alpha Delta Phi in 1900 chose a site on the west side of campus but away frommostofthefraternitiesinthatarea.Bythistime,thereweresevenfrater- nities located on the west side of campus just north of Cascadilla Creek. Another stream, Fall Creek, formed the northern boundary of campus. Five years before, the Chi Psi fraternity had purchased the famous McGraw-Fiske mansion,whichsatonthirtyacresonthesouthedgeofFallCreek,oppositethe northwestcornerofcampus.Builtin1881forJennieMcGraw,daughterofone of Cornell’s founders, the McGraw-Fiske mansion wasIthaca’s most extrava- gant residence (see Figure 4). Styled after a French chateau and designed by William Henry Miller, who designed more than seventy buildings in Ithaca and on the Cornell campus, including nine fraternity houses, it had sweeping viewsofthecampus,town,andCayugaLake,andcostareported$300,000 to build. After McGraw died, the land on which the mansion sat was subdivided intosmallerlots,and,overthenextdecade,manyweresoldtofraternities.This becamethe next majorfraternity-building area.In 1899, Phi Kappa Psibuilt a housenextdoortoChiPsi.Ayearlater,AlphaDeltaPhipurchasedafive-acre lot just below the Chi Psi house.24 The Chi Psi house set a standard of luxury that other Cornell fraternities sought to emulate. In fact, Alpha Delta Phi alumni worried about choosing a sitenearby,fearingtheywouldbeforever“overshadowed.”Theyalsoworried that the site was too far from the center of student life. Two factors enabled them to overlook these disadvantages. The Ithaca street railway was extended along Stewart Avenue in front of the site they were considering, making the area more accessible and stimulating the building in the vicinity of several “fine residences by professors and leading business men,” a class of people more compatible with the fraternity’s own social aspirations than the inde- pendents in Collegetown. Moreover, the fraternity had learned “from reliable sources” that Cornell planned to build several men’s residence halls across from the site. Although the fraternity wanted no part of the “Heustis Street Gumprecht / RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN COLLEGE TOWNS 239 atmosphere,”thedormitorieswouldhousefreshmen,thesourceoffuturefrater- nitypledges.25 Whatbetterplacetoshowcasetheattractionsoffraternitylife? Rather than try to copy the gothic grandeur of the Chi Psi house, Alpha Delta Phi hired Chicago architect George Dean, a student of Frank Lloyd Wright, who designed the house in the prairie-school tradition of his mentor (seeFigure5).26 SeekingtodistinguishitstillfurtherfromChiPsi,AlphaDelta Phibuiltaseparateinitiationchamber—awindowless,nine-sided,star-shaped structure designed for the fraternity’s secret initiation rituals. The chapter house and initiation chamber were completed in 1903. About the same time, two other fraternities purchased land on the former McGraw-Fiske estate and began building houses. A third fraternity purchased a private home nearby. Withinadecade,thereweretenfraternityhousesinthevicinity(seeFigure6). Therewerethirteenmorelocatedfarthersouth,onthenorthedgeofCascadilla Creek.27 In 1914, as expected, Cornell built the first of fifteen men’s residence halls in between the two Greek housing areas. They provided a steady stream of new initiates to nearby fraternities and stimulated the building of other chapter houses in the vicinity. At Cornell and elsewhere, as Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz has noted, Greeks dominated the formal aspects of student life. They were disproportionately representedinstudentgovernment.Theyweretheeditorsofthestudentnews- paperandtheyearbook.Theywerethecheerleadersandstarsofathleticteams. Theirpartiesanddanceswerethemostimportanteventsonlocalsocialcalen- dars and were covered on the society pages of newspapers. Fraternity men 240 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / January 2006 Figure 4: The Chi Psi fraternity purchased the famous McGraw-Fiske mansion in 1881. SOURCE:CarolSislerPapers,Collection4925,DivisionofRareandManuscriptCollections,Cor- nell University Library. Used with permission. were wealthier and more conservative than the student body as a whole, and theirchapterhousesweresumptuousmansionsdesignedtosymbolizethesta- tusoftheirresidents,withgreatbaywindows,wideverandas,grandstaircases, oak-lined dining rooms, and stone fireplaces. The Saturday Evening Post calledCornell’schapterhouses“theveryapexofsybariticluxury.”28 Cornell’s early fraternities were also exclusively white and Christian, which stimulated the development of minority Greekorganizations. The first black fraternity in theUnitedStates,AlphaPhiAlpha,wasfounded atCornellin1906, though it does not appear to have had a chapter house, its members living together in a rooming house on State Street. A Jewish fraternity, Zeta Beta Tau, was estab- lished on campus the following year. It established chapter houses first in Collegetown and later in Cornell Heights.29 Cornell’sGreeksystem,likethoseatotheruniversities,grewwiththeinsti- tution, eventually becoming one of the largest in the United States. By 1925, there were eighty fraternities and sororities, and chapter houses had spread north into the Cornell Heights neighborhood and the separately incorporated village of Cayuga Heights. Several years before, Delta Gamma had become the first sorority to own its own house and sorority membership increased as femaleenrollment grew. 30 The lure of fraternity life and the contrasts between the Greeks and their opposites, the studious but socially inept “grinds,” was wellillustratedinCharlesThompson’snovel,HalfwayDowntheStairs,setin Ithaca.Thebook’sprotagonist,aself-described“grubbylittlejerkfromPhilip, Gumprecht / RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN COLLEGE TOWNS 241 Figure 5: Alpha Delta Phi chapter house, built in 1903 on land subdivided from the McGraw-Fiske estate. SOURCE: Alpha Delta Phi at Cornell University. Used with permission. Mass.,”arrivesinIthacaatoneoftheWestCampusdorms,expectingivy-cov- ered grandeur only to find a “dirt and tar-paper shack, which was crouched withnineortenlikeitundertheshadowoftwogreatbrickfraternityhouses.”31 The houses belonged to Psi Upsilon and Sigma Phi, still today among Cornell’s most elite fraternities. “Well,Idroppedmybagsonthestoopofthishovel,andlookedupatthefra- ternity houses,” recalled the novel’s central character. “They were huge, with diamond panes and lattice windows and about fifteen chimneys apiece. Each onehadacoolflagstoneterrace,andononeoftheseterracesabunchofpeople 242 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / January 2006 Figure 6: Fraternity houses built on land subdivided from the McGraw-Fiske estate in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Alpha Delta Phi’s star-shaped initiation chamber is to the right of the fraternity’s chapter house. SOURCE: Alpha Delta Phi at Cornell University. Used with permission. werehavingaparty.Theyweretallbrownboysandgirlsinskirtsandcashmere sweaters,inlightflannelsandwhitebucks,andtheylookedlikesomethingout of the Philip Yacht Club. They were drinking what looked like orange juice; theymovedinandoutofwideFrenchdoorsontheterrace,andinsidesomeone was playing good cocktail piano. I stood there and watched them for a long time, fascinated.” After a while, one of the fraternity men wandered over to a wall, gazed out over the town, then looked down at the dorms. “There was a funny mixture of reactions on his face. He saw my suit and my shoes and my long hair and my beat-up cardboard suitcases, but it wouldn’t have bothered himifhehadn’tcaughtthelookonmyface.Iguesshesawpureenvythere,and a bitter kind of lust....Iwanted to be up on the Sigma Phi terrace with the pretty boys and pretty girls.” Fraternitieshaveexperiencedalternatingperiodsofexpansionandcontrac- tion,supportandcriticism.Manyclosedduring WorldWarIIandstruggledto regaintheirpreviousstatureinapostwareraduringwhichveteransdominated campus life. Fraternities boomed again during the 1950s, once the veterans graduated—two-thirds of Cornell freshmen pledged in the mid-1950s—only to come under attack in the nonconformist Sixties. Membership declined and some two dozen fraternities and sororities at Cornell closed. Fraternities nationwide were pressured to eliminate discriminatory clauses in their charters and to actively recruit ethnic and religious minorities. In 1968, Cor- nell’sBoardofTrusteesinstitutedapolicyrequiringallfraternitiesandsorori- ties to comply with an antidiscrimination pledge. The conservatism of fraternities stood in sharp contrast to the tenor of the times. When militant blacks occupied the Cornell student union in 1969, for example, members of the Delta Upsilon fraternity broke into the building to try to remove them. 32 SomefacultyatCornellandelsewherecalledfortheabolishmentoftheGreek system,whichonereportcalled“anabsurdanachronism.”33 Fewcollegesever actedonsuchrecommendations,perhapsbecause,asoneCornellreportfound andobserverselsewherehavenoted,adisproportionate shareofthemostgen- erous alumni donors to colleges and universities are fraternity men.34 The campus protests of the 1960s led to the eventual elimination of many university regulations governing student behavior, which, along with the rais- ingofthelegaldrinking ageandthepopularity ofthefraternitymovie Animal House,spurredarevivalofGreeklifeinthe1980s.Asstateafterstateraisedits drinking age to twenty-one, fraternities assured undergraduates continued access to alcohol and made chapter houses once again the center of campus life. Fraternities became, in the words of Simon Bronner, “underage drinking clubs.” Nationwide, fraternity membership nearly doubled between 1980 and 1986. ThenumberoffraternitiesandsororitiesatCornell grewfromfifty-two to sixty-five in a decade. 35 Giant fraternity parties rocked the West Campus Greek housing district every weekend. One fraternity alumnus described the 1980s as Cornell’s “Lord of the Flies period,” an era when fraternity parties advertising 125 kegs and drawing 3,000 people were common.36 Gumprecht / RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN COLLEGE TOWNS 243 Growing concern in recent years over student drinking, the sexual conduct of fraternity members, and injuries caused by hazing, and continued criticism that fraternity membership practices are elitist and even discriminatory, have prompted collegestoagaintry toreign intheGreeks. 37 Someinstitutions have banned alcoholic beverages from chapter houses. Cornell has imposed many new restrictions on Greek social activities. Open parties are now prohibited: Alleventsmustbebyinvitationonlyandsponsorsarerequiredtohaveaguest listatthedoor.Chaptersmusthirealicensedcatererforalleventswherealco- hol is served. Rush and pledge functions must be dry. Conversations with fra- ternity members indicate that the regulations are more a nuisance than a deterrentandareroutinely ignored orcircumvented. Drinking isstillacentral component of Greek life and student cultures in general (see Figure 7). Large parties are still common, with the fraternities on West Campus taking turns holding the biggest events. Underage drinking is still widespread. Hazing is still practiced, though truly dangerous rituals are rare. 38 Cornell’s fraternities and sororities, like Greek organizations nationwide, also remain overwhelm- ingly white. While allhaveeliminated discriminatory membership policies in their bylaws and now have minority members, they are still less diverse than the student body and society as a whole.39 Changing attitudes toward fraternities are having an impact. Nationwide, fraternity membership declined 30 percent between 1990 and 2000. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, “Greek life is ...atough sell,” according to RichardMcKaig,directoroftheCenterfortheStudyoftheCollegeFraternity at Indiana University. 40 At Cornell, membership fell 11.2 percent between 1996and2001.Threechapterhousesclosed.Cornellfraternitymembersrefer to the time before the new social rules were implemented as “the good old days.”41 Nevertheless,GreekliferemainsanintegralpartofstudentlifeatCor- nell, which had forty-four fraternities and twenty-one sororities in 2001. Roughlyone-quarterofundergraduatesweremembers.Thecontinuedimpor- tanceoffraternitiesandsororities,andtheprominenceoftheirchapterhouses in the built environment (see Figure 8), suggest that the fraternity district will remain a distinctive attribute of college towns well into the future. THE STUDENT GHETTO For as long as there have been fraternities and sororities, there have been undergraduates who have reviled them, resented their importance, and lived their college years outside their sphere of influence. Many prefer to rent large houses near campus with friends or live in apartments. Campus-adjacent neighborhoods are often dominated by such rentals. Most college towns of a certain size have at least one neighborhood near campus that is home almost exclusively to undergraduates. Informally, it is often called the “student ghetto” and ischaracterizedby dilapidated houses, beat-up couchessitting on 244 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / January 2006 porches, cars parked on lawns, and bicycles chained to anything that will not move(seeFigure9).Itistheresultofwhathappenedtomanycampus-adjacent neighborhoods when enrollments mushroomed following World War II: Col- leges became less able to house their students, landlords saw an opportunity, and homeowners sought refuge from the influx of young people. Such neigh- borhoods often filtered down from faculty and other more well-to-do perma- nent residents as the housing stock deteriorated.42 Neighborhoods suchasUniversityHillinBoulder,Colorado;CollegePark inGainesville,Florida;andtheCollegetowndistrictinIthacaarelocallynoto- rious and the frequent subject of proposals by governmentofficialsseeking to controltheirspreadandimprovetheirappearance(seeFigure10).43 Manycol- lege towns have sought to slow the expansion of such neighborhoods by imposing regulations intended to discourage the conversion of single-family homesintorentalproperties.Inadecisionthatcouldprovesignificantforcol- lege towns, the Indiana Court of Appeals in 2002 struck down as unconstitu- tional a zoning ordinance in the college town of Bloomington, Indiana, that saidnomorethanthreeunrelatedadultscouldliveinanydwelling. Manycol- lege towns have similar ordinances. Couches on porches are so central to the image of the student ghetto that an entrepreneur in Ithaca createda poster that isaparody of tourist posters such as“TheDoors of Dublin.”Itfeaturesthirty- threephotosofcouchesandotherindoorfurnitureonIthacaporchesabovethe banner,“CouchesofCollegetown”(seeFigure11).Someseetheproliferation Gumprecht / RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN COLLEGE TOWNS 245 Figure 7: Students use a funnel while drinking at a Cornell University fraternity party. SOURCE: Photograph by the author. of couches on porches as less benign, however. The City Council in Boulder recently implemented an ordinance prohibiting upholstered furniture outdoors inresponsetoseveralriotsonUniversityHillinwhichcoucheswereburned.44 TheoriginandevolutionofIthaca’sCollegetownneighborhood(seeFigure 1) is in many ways representative of student-rental districts in college towns nationwide.CollegetowndidnotexistwhenCornellopeneditsdoorsin1868. Most residents of Ithaca lived on the “flats” that extended southward from Cayuga Lake. Ithaca’s central business district developed along State Street andmosthomeswerelocatednorthofit.Therewerebutascatteringofprivate homesonEastHill,adjacenttotheCornellcampus.Mostoftheareawasoccu- piedbysmallfarmsandwoods.ThefirstsignificantbuildingonEastHillwasa cotton mill built in 1827 by Otis Eddy, for whom one of the major streets in 246 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / January 2006 Figure 8: DeltaKappaEpsilon,oneof25fraternityhousesinIthaca’sWestCampusGreek housing district. SOURCE: Photograph by the author. Collegetownisnamed.Themillwastorndownin1866andreplacedbyafive- story stone building, Cascadilla Place, a hospital based on the water cure, whichalsofailed.45 CornellleasedCascadillaPlace,convertingitintoadormi- tory for students and faculty. It became the nucleus around which the neigh- borhood grew. Collegetown developed organically in response to undergraduate demand for housing, the student-dominated district expanding outward as Cornell’s enrollment increased. When Cornell opened, students had three choices of where to live. Cascadilla Place provided room and board for 104 students, plus twelve fac- ulty members and their families. It was abhorred by professors and students alike.Ithad outdoor priviesand gaslighting. The managerof thedining room kept a pigsty out back. Cornell’s first president, Andrew Dickson White, who lived in Cascadilla while his home was being built, called it “an ill-ventilated, ill-smelling, uncomfortable, ill-looking alms house.” 46 Another seventy-five Gumprecht / RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN COLLEGE TOWNS 247 Figure 9: Typical student-ghetto rental house in the Collegetown neighborhood, Ithaca. SOURCE: Photograph by the author. students lived in the university’s first academic building, Morrill Hall. Every- one else had to live down the hill in central Ithaca and walk a mile to campus, climbing the steep, four-hundred-foot hill upon which the university stands. The walk to campus was so exhausting that an early professor placed a stone bench about halfway up Buffalo Street to provide weary climbers a place to rest.47 Whiteopposedthebuildingofdormitories,insistingundergraduateswould be better off rooming in private homes. “Large bodies of students collected in dormitories often arrive at a degree of turbulence,” he said, “which small par- ties, gathered in the houses of citizens, seldom if ever reach.” 48 By necessity, somespacewassetasideinthefirstuniversitybuildingstohousestudents,but as enrollment grew, student rooms were converted to academic uses. The building of rental housing near campus lagged behind demand. For the first fiveyears,themajorityofstudentslivedincentralIthaca,manyformingclubs so they could reduce expenses by leasing an entire house. Cornell’s first stu- dent newspaper, the Era, urged Ithaca residents to “wake up” and “furnish accommodations—at reasonable prices and within reasonable distance of the University halls.” So desperate were students for housing near campus that a groupoftwentystudentswasgrantedpermissiontobuildacottageontheuni- versity grounds. Later, David Starr Jordan, who became the first president of Stanford University, joined with several classmates to build a wood “hut” on campus, near the president’s house.49 248 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / January 2006 Figure 10: Sights such as this one have prompted governments in college towns to try to improve the appearance of student rental districts and control their spread. SOURCE: Photograph by the author. Finally,inthelate1870s,severallarge,frameroominghouseswerebuilton EddyStreetandHeustisStreet,nowCollegeAvenue(seeFigure12).By1889, there were fifty-nine residences in Collegetown. Enrollment at Cornell had topped1,000,makingitoneofthelargestuniversitiesinthecountry.Thatyear, the Era appealedtothecitytoextenditsstreetcarlinetocampus,claimingthat thelackoftransportation servedto“isolatetheuniversity”andcausedrentsin Gumprecht / RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN COLLEGE TOWNS 249 Figure 11: Couches on porches are so central to the image of the student ghetto that an Ithaca entrepreneur created this parody of tourist posters such as “The Doors of Dublin.” SOURCE: Carole Schiffman. Used with permission. Collegetown to become “abnormally high,” a common complaint in student rental districts up to the present day. 50 The streetcar line was extended to cam- pus in 1893. The largest rooming houses were located along Heustis Street, most of them, in the words of Cornell’s historian, “cheap, ugly, and hazard- ous.”51 Intime,businessesbegantospringupinCollegetowntoservestudents livingintheroominghouses.In1903,aprivatedormitory,SheldonCourt,was builtoppositethemainentrancetoCornell.Ithoused135students,theTriangle Book Store, a doctor’s office, and a restaurant known as Mother’s Kitchen.52 Thestudent-housing districtgrewandgrew.Yearbyyear,newhouseswere built on the north-south streets leading to campus. Between 1904 and 1910, twenty newhouses werebuilt along Heustis Street. Eventually, neweast-west streets were developed and one by one houses were built along them. The Cook family, Ithaca’s leading florists at the turn of the century, owned a large tract between Heustis and Eddy streets, upon which they had an orchard and several greenhouses. Catherine Street and Cook Street were built through this tract.Overthenexttwentyyears,twodozenhouseswerebuiltonthetwoone- block streets and the last of the greenhouses was removed. By 1930, most of present-dayCollegetownwasbuiltup.Housesfarthestfromcampuswereini- tiallyoccupiedbyfamilies,whomayhaverentedanextraroomtostudents,but over time these too were converted to rooming houses and later apartments. The Collegetown commercial district also expanded. The parts of Heustis Street,DrydenRoad,andEddy Streetclosesttocampuscametobelinedwith restaurants, bookstores, grocers, barbers, and other businesses catering to students.53 250 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / January 2006 Figure 12: Roominghousesbuiltinthe1870salongHeustisStreet,nowCollegeAvenue,in Ithaca’s Collegetown neighborhood. SOURCE:ArchivePhotographCollection,No.13-6-2497,DivisionofRareandManuscriptCollec- tions, Cornell University Library. Used with permission. AsCornell students began to sort themselvesout residentially according to lifestyle differences, Collegetown developed a decidedly different character thantheGreek-housingdistrictbetweenFallandCascadillacreeks.Wherethe fraternityhouseswereexpensiveandpalatial,theroominghouseswere,inthe words of Morris Bishop, a Cornell student and later a faculty member, “light, flimsy structures of wood or of loathsome chocolate-colored Ithaca mud.” Bishop mapped the geography of the rooming houses in a 1912 article in the Cornell Era. The most desirable—and expensive—were located on the hill leading to Collegetown. “The dweller here need never be ashamed of his address,” Bishop wrote. The quality of housing quickly deteriorated east of Eddy Street, an area he referred to as “The Great Rooming-House Belt.” “Roomsherearecheaper,”hewrote, “but aseveryou mustpay for cheapness. Many...aresmall,bare,andinsecureagainsttheinvasionofourfamousFeb- ruaryweather.”In1913,acommitteecomposedofstudentsreportedthatmost of the Heustis Street and Dryden Road rooming houses were “crowded” and many were “fire traps,” and recommended that the university begin regular inspection of the rooming houses. The following year, Cornell’s Board of Trusteesimplemented aplan to inspect the rooming houses annually and sup- ply to freshman a list of inspected houses.54 Where the best of the fraternity houses were home to the undergraduate elite, Collegetown housed those students who were at the bottom of the Cor- nell“castesystem,”accordingtoBishop.Theywere,hewrotefiftyyearslater, “a vast plebian mass, the independents, the outsiders, the pills, the poops, the drips.” Where the fraternity district was Cornell’s country club, Collegetown was its tenement district. It also became Ithaca’s Left Bank, particularly after WorldWarII,whenlivinginthe“sweetlittleslumofroominghouses”became an affectation of the wannabe proletariat. “The Collegetown crowd—well, they’rethebohemians,”wroteCharlesThompsonin HalfwayDowntheStairs. “They dress a la Greenwich Village and they’re actors and writers and musi- cians and that sort of thing. I always thought they were a ratty bunch.”55 As Cornell’s enrollment grew following World War II, the student housing district expanded. Enrollment nearly doubled between 1940 and 1965, asvet- eransfloodedcampusesandbabyboomersbegantoentercollege.Thepropor- tionofhighschoolgraduatesattendingcollegetripledinthefirstthreedecades after the war. 56 Like most American universities, Cornell devoted increasing resources to dormitory construction, building in the 1950s alone seven resi- dence halls capable of housing 1,200 students, but the number of students liv- ing off campus grew even faster. The nature of student accommodations also changed, as the postwar student sought more room and greater freedom. Stu- dentscametopreferapartmentsandgraduallymostofCollegetown’srooming houses were converted. 57 As demand for off-campus housing increased, many single-familyhomesinCollegetownwerealsoturnedintoapartments.Typical of college towns nationwide, landlords could outbid families as houses came onthemarket.Thelifestyledifferencesbetweenstudentsandolderadultsalso Gumprecht / RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN COLLEGE TOWNS 251 pushedfamiliesout.Blockbyblock,Collegetownturnedfromamixedneigh- borhood into a student-dominated district. At the time, it was also a predomi- nantlymaleneighborhood,asfemalestudentswererequiredtoliveoncampus or in sororities, as they were at many American colleges. CollegetownbecamethecenterofIthaca’scounterculturalsceneduringthe 1960s, a period one writer later called the neighborhood’s “Golden Age.” As enrollmentsgrewandthecontrastsbetweenundergraduatesandtherestofthe population intensified, student-dominated districts near college campuses developed a culture all their own. They were, in the words of the sociologist John Lofland, “cities of youth.” The anthropologist William Partridge called one such neighborhood in Gainesville, Florida, “the hippie ghetto.” It was in Ithaca’s Collegetown that Richard Fariña, confidante of Bob Dylan and brother-in-lawofJoanBaez,sethisquintessentiallySixtiesnovel,BeenDown SoLongItLooksLikeUptoMe.TherewerepoetryreadingsattheCabbagetown Café.GaysandbikershungoutatMorrie’sbar.“EightMilesHigh”driftedout ofapartmentwindows.ApavedparcelatthecornerofEddyStreetandDryden Roadwassetasideas“People’sPark.”58 “Collegetown,”wroteacontemporary observer,“is,andalwayshasbeen,thefertilesoilinthisareaforwriting,party- ing, rioting, speech-making, and messing up and getting off.”59 In the early seventies, however, a “wave of heroin” arrived in Collegetown and the mood began to sour. In 1971, a reputed drug dealer was murdered in a Collegetownparkinglot.Junkiesruledthestreets,accordingtoonewriter.The grassy slope behind Cascadilla Place became the favored spot to smoke mari- juana.Drugdeals“weregoing onallthetime”onEddy Street.LSDwascom- monplace,withhangers-on“‘layinghits’onanyonewhowalkedby.”60 InMay 1972,followingananti–VietnamWarrallyoncampus,acrowdtriedtosetfire to the Collegetown branch of the First National Bank, but it would not burn. Two days later, police seeking to break up a block party on College Avenue triggered a four-hour melee during which partygoers threw bottles, cans, and rocks at police. Twenty-nine people were arrested and twenty others were injured, including ten policemen (see Figure 13). Police in riot gear used tear gas to disperse the crowd.61 Bythistime,thehousing stockinCollegetownhaddeteriorated. Littlenew housing had been built in a half-century and existing housing was poorly maintained(seeFigure14).Themostrun-downbuildingswerefireandhealth hazards.“Itwasdirty,cockroachinfested,”saidSeanKilleen,whorepresented theneighborhoodontheIthacaCommonCouncil.62 Asenrollmentsincreased, ahousingshortagedevelopedoncampus,whichheighteneddemandforhous- ing off-campus. The greatest growth was in the female student population, which doubled between 1965 and 1975 while male enrollment stayed about the same. In response to protests against differential regulations for coeds, which grew out of the nationwide student power movement, Cornell’s admin- istrationgraduallyeliminatedrulesrequiringfemalestudentstoliveoncampus, which escalated demand for rental properties in Collegetown. Demand 252 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / January 2006 exceededsupplyintheareasclosesttocampus,sorentsrose.Becausestudents wereacaptivemarket,landlordsoftendidlittletoimprovetheirproperties(see Figure 15). The situation grew so bad that in 1965 students put up tents on campus to protest poor housing conditions in Ithaca. Cornell implemented a detailedcodeforstudentrentalhousingand,in1966,beganrequiringstudents to livein university-approvedhousing. In 1969, theIthacaTenantsUnion was formed; it called on Cornell to build more residential facilities on campus and pressured the city to strengthen its building codes and increase enforcement. Rent strikes became widespread.63 A columnist in the Cornell student newspaper in 1975 lampooned the poor conditionsofCollegetownhousing,retellingthestoryofhissearchforaplace to live. He visited one apartment on Eddy Street, which he described as “a streetofsingularcharmandugliness,punctuatedbygarbagecansandparking meters.. . . The landlord, an unfriendly and unshaven man with an apron, showedmeintotheflatwhichhadabedroom,kitchenandwaterclosetandall slantingtendegreesoffthehorizontal.Thetablewasnailedtothefloorandthe landlord told me the only problem with the flat was when Sally upstairs washed her twelve blue jeans and washing machine B overflowed, but there was plastic in the closet to catch the drippings.” He visited another apartment on Buffalo Street. “Thelandlord led meup the stairs[which] creaked with the Gumprecht / RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN COLLEGE TOWNS 253 Figure 13: Handcuffed student arrested in May 1972 Collegetown riot. SOURCE:PhotographbyDanBrothers,publishedin ACenturyatCornell,byDanielMargulisand John Schroeder, copyright 1980. Used with permission. poverty that makes a great writer and my heart beat faster and my pencil weighedheavyinmypocket.Thedoortotheflatledtothekitchenwhichledto the bathroom which led to the bedroom where the light from the gabled win- dowlitallthreeroomsbecausetheywereinastraightline ...Thewindowhad a crack in it where I could stuff my socks. Bad apartments make good writers so I signed the lease and I was happy.”64 Collegetownhasundergoneprofoundchangesoverthelastquartercentury. City officials began to press for the redevelopment of the neighborhood in 1968. The following year, a city-sponsored urban renewal plan called for the heartofCollegetowntobedemolishedandreplacedwithamassive,multipur- pose development. It recommended construction of a large building on Col- lege Avenue that would include 375 apartments, 600 parking spaces, retail on the first and second floors, two movie theaters, a restaurant, and nine floors ofofficespace.Italsocalledfortheconstructionofsixtoeighthigh-riseapart- menttowers,thetallesteighteentotwenty-onestories.Theplanwentnowhere 254 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / January 2006 Figure 14: Rooming house at 209 College Avenue, Ithaca. SOURCE:PhotographbyCarinAshjian,publishedin ACenturyatCornell,byDanielMargulisand John Schroeder, copyright 1980. Used with permission. because, as Ithaca planning director H. Matthys Van Court said, “it was too big” and “unfinancable.” 65 Countless proposals were debated over the subse- quentdecade,butlittlerealchangetookplaceuntilthe1980s.In1981,Cornell decided to build a new $16.5-million performing arts center in Collegetown, and to renovate Cascadilla Place and a once-private dormitory nearby to provide additional student housing. Cornell spent $40 million on various Collegetown projects and, in the pro- cess,stimulatedthetransformationoftheneighborhood.Today,largeapartment buildings, the tallest of which is nine stories, line both sides of Dryden Road (seeFigure16).SeveralotherapartmentbuildingswerebuiltonCollegeAvenue and Eddy Street. “It’s like a mini-Manhattan,” observed one local business- man.66 Thecityencourageddevelopmentbytemporarilysuspendingbuilding- height limits and parking requirements. Over a ten-year period, more than a dozen apartment buildings, capable of housing 1,700 people, were built. The building boom is representative of changes that are taking place in student- housing districts in college towns nationwide. A prolonged period of eco- nomic prosperity meant students were arriving at college with new cars and more money for housing. Landlords in Ithaca and elsewhere discovered that student tastes had changed. Where undergraduates in earlier periods would snap up cramped and dingy apartments in beat-up old houses, a new breed of students preferred modern buildings with greater amenities, while still want- ing to live close to campus. Developers such as Houston-based Sterling Gumprecht / RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN COLLEGE TOWNS 255 Figure 15: Cramped interior of a typical Collegetown apartment, 1971. SOURCE: Photograph by Richard A. Shulman, published in A Century at Cornell, by Daniel Margulis and John Schroeder, copyright 1980. Used with permission. UniversityHousinghaverecognizedthismarketniche.Sterlinghasbuiltame- nity-rich student housing—intended as a cross between dormitories and apart- ments—in thirty college communities. Its properties typically include fitness centers, volleyball courts, hot tubs, game rooms, and high-speed Internet access.67 JasonFane,Ithaca’sbiggestlandlord,builtthreeoftheapartmentbuildings on Dryden Road. All are fully furnished, air conditioned, with dishwashers, microwave ovens, and Ethernet connections. One even has a doorman. Fane also owns a number of older Collegetown houses. He has watched student housing tastes change over the last quarter century. In 1975, he remarked that students “aren’t interested in aesthetics.” 68 A quarter century later, Fane observedthatstudents“arelookingforquality.”Theywantapartmentsthatare “clean, fresh, new,” “close to campus,” with “the latest technology,” “superb 256 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / January 2006 Figure 16: Large, modern apartment buildings now line Dryden Road in Collegetown, in- dicative of the changing nature of college town student rental districts. SOURCE: Photograph by the author. services,”and“views.”“Basically,”heconcluded,“studentswantprettymuch thesamethingasthetenantinanewhigh-risetowerinabigcity.”69 Rentalrates have skyrocketed as a result of the new development. A one-bedroom apart- ment in Fane’s newest building, Collegetown Center, is $1,300–$1,400 a month.Parkingcostsanother$175amonth.Studioapartmentsinthe312Col- lege Avenue building, which has a mini-theater that residents can reserve, study rooms, and a concierge, are $1,020–$1,255 a month.70 The expensivenewbuildings haveincreased the population density, stimu- lated new retail development, and created, in effect, two Collegetowns. There were nearly 2,000 more people living in the neighborhood in 2000 than there werein 1980, an increaseof 125 percent. Population density is now compara- ble to Brooklyn or San Francisco. Not surprisingly, the population is young, mostarestudents,andnearlyallarerenters.Anyoneoveragethirtystandsout. Collegetown is also increasingly Asian, reflecting a rise in the enrollment of AsianstudentsatCornellsince1980.Asiansmadeup30percentoftheneigh- borhood’s population in 2000, a proportion three times higher than twenty years before. 71 Many of the new apartment buildings include retail on the first floor,andthecharacterofbusinesseshaschangeddramaticallyinrecentyears. Collegetownisnowfilledwithrestaurants,bars,coffeehouses,andotherbusi- nesses catering to the wealthier students who live in the new buildings. There are seventeen different restaurants, including six different varieties of Asian cuisine. Fartherfromcampus,however,Collegetownremainsmuchasithasforfifty years. The lower ends of Eddy Street, College Avenue, and nearby streets are still lined with large, frame houses full of student apartments, many of them approachingonehundredyearsold.Rentsarecheaperthantheyareinthenew buildings. Since the 1960s, the student-housing district has expanded down East Hill and east into the Bryant Park neighborhood, as rising enrollments increased demand for rentals. Collegetown remains Ithaca’s student ghetto and still meets the definition of a ghetto as a neighborhood where a particular group livesinrelativeisolationfromtherestofthepopulation, butpartsofthe areanolongerfittheaestheticcharacteristicsthatsuchadesignationsuggests. Collegetown, like student housing districts in university communities nationwide, is changing. THE FACULTY ENCLAVE Althoughprofessorsarelessconcentratedresidentiallythantheyoncewere and arescatteredthroughout universitycommunitieslikeIthaca,mostcollege towns have at least one older neighborhood near campus that has resisted the invasion of undergraduates and is home to large numbers of professors and collegestaff.Thefacultyenclaveisaneighborhood ofclassichomesandtree- lined streets, where residents vigilantly seek to preserve the area’s character Gumprecht / RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN COLLEGE TOWNS 257 and prevent incursions by students (see Figure 17). John Jakle, in a study of Urbana,Illinois, found thatUniversityofIllinois facultywereconcentratedin that city’s Carle Park neighborhood and observed that professors were more likelytoownhouses thatwerearchitecturally distinctiveasawaytosetthem- selvesapartasan“educatedgentryclass.”GormanBeauchamp,inaportraitof Burns Park, a faculty enclave in Ann Arbor, Michigan, noted that residents of such neighborhoods are more likely than inhabitants of other areas to own a passport, subscribe to the New York Review of Books, and espouse liberal causes, and less likely to go to church or fly the U.S. flag. “Ah yes, Burns Park,” Beauchamp wrote, quoting a faculty colleague at the University of Michigan, “where they vote left and live right.”72 Ithacahasatleasttwofaculty-orientedneighborhoods,CayugaHeightsand Bryant Park(seeFigure 1). CayugaHeights, aseparatelyincorporated village locatednorthoftheCornellcampus,isthemoreeliteofthetwo,itslotslarger, itshomesmoreexpensive,and,asaresult,ishometohigh percentagesoften- ured and emeritus faculty. Nearly two-thirds of adult residents in Cayuga Heights in 2000 held graduate degrees. 73 Bryant Park, adjacent to the south side of the Cornell campus and convenient as well to Ithaca College, was developed about the same time, but its lots are smaller, its homes less grandi- ose,anditslocationlessdesirable.WhereCayugaHeightslooksoutonpictur- esque Cayuga Lake, Bryant Park abuts the student-dominated Collegetown district. While Cayuga Heights has traditionally been home to large numbers of senior faculty, Bryant Park is more affordable and, as a result, has been 258 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / January 2006 Figure 17: Entrance to Cayuga Heights, one of two major faculty enclaves in Ithaca. SOURCE: Photograph by the author. popular with younger faculty buying their first homes. One longtime resident ofBryantPark,aCornelleconomicsprofessor,said,“Ialwaystellmystudents thattheproletariatprofessorslivein[BryantPark]andtheaffluentoneslivein Cayuga Heights.”74 IntheearlyyearsafterCornellwasfounded,mostfacultylivedoncampus— firstinCascadillaPlacealongsidestudentsandlaterinhousesbuiltontheuni- versitygrounds.BecausethecampuswasisolatedfromtherestofIthaca,Cor- nell’s trustees permitted faculty to build houses on land leased from the university, a practice not uncommon in college towns. 75 The first two faculty cottageswerebuiltin1871andeventuallythirty-fourfacultyhomeswerebuilt on campus. Cornell President White supported the program because he believed “commodious, convenient, and attractive” homes would make pro- fessors less likely to leave Cornell. “Even the presence of an attractive little verandaorbay-window,”hesaid,“mayholdawifeagainstadvancedsalaryfor herhusbandelsewhere.”76 Aftertheturnofthecentury,asCornell’senrollment begantorise,therecametobeincreasingpressureforthelanduponwhichthe houseswerebuilt.Onebyonethefacultyhouseswerepurchased,demolished, and replaced by academic buildings, and faculty moved off campus. This change stimulated residential development nearby. In fact, the only subdivi- sions developed in Ithaca between 1888 (when it was incorporated as a city) and World War I were built on East Hill in areas convenient to the Cornell campus.77 Ithaca’sfirstfacultyenclavewasCornellHeights,locatedbetweentheCor- nellcampusandCayugaHeights,onthenorthedgeoftheFallCreekgorge.An unnamedwriterintheCornellstudentnewspaperfirstrecognizedtheresiden- tial potential of the area one year after the university’s founding. In an article calling for the construction of housing for students near campus, the writer appealedtotheownerofthelandnorthofFallCreekto“atoncethrowabridge across that stream as near as possible to the University edifices, cut up his property into building lots, and forthwith erect as many inexpensive but sub- stantialresidencesascanbebuilt.”78 Afewyearslater,FranklinCornell,sonof university founder Ezra Cornell, likewise recognized the attractions of the area,observing,“thelandacrossthegorgeisthegrandestandbestinthiscoun- tryforresidences.”Hehadadifferentclienteleinmindthanthestudentwriter, however, predicting that one day “the campus people will burst across the gorge . . . and make those lands the choicest in Ithaca.”79 Thelackofabridgeacrossthedeepgorgeinhibiteddevelopmentofthearea foraquartercentury.Finally,in1896, agroupledbyEdwardG.Wyckoff,son of a wealthy Ithaca businessman, announced plans for the development of Cornell Heights. Wyckoff purchased a controlling interest in the Ithaca Street Railway so the streetcar line could be extended to the area. Two bridges were builtacrossthegorgejustbeforetheturnofthecentury,enablingthestreetrail- waytobebuiltthroughtheCornellcampustoCornellHeightsandback.From the outset, Wyckoff envisioned Cornell Heights as an elite residential area Gumprecht / RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN COLLEGE TOWNS 259 cateringtofacultyandbusinessmen,“withouttheencroachmentofcommercial interests or students.” 80 Several streets were named for early Cornell profes- sors. Most original residents were Cornell faculty, who walked to campus or rode the streetcar. An unwelcome development in 1906, typical of the forces that trigger neighborhood change in college towns, squelched Cornell Heights’ emer- genceasIthaca’spremierfacultyenclave.Thatyear,ShermanPeerdonatedhis Cornell Heights house to the Alpha Zeta fraternity. The move enraged Wyckoff, who threatened legal action against Peer for violating the terms of his deed. “You are aware as to the efforts we have always made to the end of keeping fraternities from occupying houses on Cornell Heights,” Wyckoff wrote his lawyer. “These young men are causing considerable annoyance in the neighborhood.” 81 Cornell Heights’ proximity to campus made it increas- ingly difficult to keep out students and gradually faculty began to relocate. In 1912, Cornell built the first of several women’s dormitories in the area. Two years later, Wyckoff himself gave up, selling his Cornell Heights estate to the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. Many faculty who sought to escape the invasion of students looked north.82 CayugaHeightsheld manyoftheattractionsofCornell Heightswithout its majordisadvantages.SittingatopthesameplateauastheCornellcampus,itis at the same elevation as the university grounds, a desirable characteristic in hilly and snowy Ithaca. It overlooks Cayuga Lake, while its gently rolling topography meant many home sites would have lake views. While it was con- venient to the Cornell campus, it was not so close that it faced the same pres- sure from student housing (though fraternities were later built on its southern edge).BecauseitneverbecamepartofthecityofIthaca,ithasalsobeenbetter able to control what goes on within its borders. The nucleus around which Cayuga Heights developed, two parcels totaling 616 acres north of Cornell Heights,justbeyondtheIthacavillagelimits,werepurchasedinabout1901by Jared Newman, Edward Wyckoff’s attorney, and Charles Hazen Blood, Newman’s law partner. Newman and Blood hired Boston landscape architect WarrenManningtodesignthesubdivision.Influencedbythepicturesqueresi- dential designs of Frederick Law Olmsted, Manning laid out Cayuga Heights withirregular-sizedhomelotsandcurvingstreetsthatfollowedthecontoursof the landscape. White pines and other trees were planted according to formal plan.83 DevelopmentofCayugaHeightswasslowatfirst.Newmanbuiltasummer home there in 1903. In 1909, he built a year-round residence. Two years later, Sherman Peer built a Gustav Stickley–designed house next door to the Newmanhome(seeFigure18).Bytheendofthatyear,thereweretwenty-one houses in the tract.In 1913, Newmanbeganto moreactively promote Cayuga Heights. He named the first area that was subdivided White Park, after Cor- nell’s first president. He advertised home sites in the Cornell Alumni News, which circulated on campus. He envisioned Cayuga Heights as a village of 260 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / January 2006 “cultured families” and predicted it would become “the finest residential sec- tion in Ithaca.” To keep out “undesirable elements” he refused to allow real estate agents to sell home lots on his behalf. Deeds prohibited fraternities and commercialenterprises.Housedesignshadtobeapprovedbythedevelopers.84 Newmansaw Cornell faculty ashis preferred clientele (seeFigure 19). In a letter to a Chicago real estate broker in 1920, he noted that Cornell professors were to receive large salary increases that year. Many of them, he observed, “areonthelookoutforhomesandagoodlyportionofthemturntheirattention in this direction.” To distinguish Cayuga Heights from Cornell Heights, he noted that there “isn’t a single boarding house in the entire village” and “the lots are larger and the outlook finer.” By February 1921, there were fifty-six houses in Cayuga Heights. “Three-fourths of the residents,” he wrote, “are in somewayconnectedwiththeUniversity.”Newman’scorrespondenceisfilled with salespitches to professors. In one, he encourages Professor John Parson, bothered by fraternities near his Ithaca home, to look to Cayuga Heights for relief. In trying to interest Professor W. W. Fisk in a large parcel, Newman wrote, “it seemed to me it was just what a University man might want.”85 Fromthebeginning,Cornellfacultyexertedadisproportionateinfluenceon civicaffairsinCayugaHeights.Allbuttwomayorssince1923havebeenCor- nell professors. Frederick Marcham, a professor of history, was mayor for thirty-two years. Faculty and their spouses have occupied a majority of seats Gumprecht / RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN COLLEGE TOWNS 261 Figure 18: ThesethreegrandresidencesmarkedtheentrancetoCayugaHeightsin1916. SOURCE: The History Center of Tompkins County. Used with permission. NOTE:AtthecenteristhehouseofCayugaHeightsdeveloperJaredNewman.AtleftistheGustav Stickley–designedhouseofShermanPeer,aclosefriendofNewman.AtrightisthehouseofJohn Tanner, Newman’s brother-in-law. 262 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / January 2006 Figure 19: Cornell professor Paul R. Pope built this Cayuga Heights house, shown under constructionandafteritwascompleted,inabout1912.CayugaLakeisvisiblein the background of the top photo. SOURCE: The History Center of Tompkins County. Used with permission. on the village governing board over the years and their attitudes, particularly the desire to prevent developments that would attract students, have shaped policy. Marcham led a successful 1954 campaign against annexation by the city of Ithaca, which he feared would bring Cayuga Heights the student- relatedproblemsthatplaguedcampus-adjacentneighborhoodsinthecity.The villagerejectedproposalsforthebuildingofarestaurantwithatavernbecause of the worry that the tavern would draw students. In the 1970s, it thwarted an attempt by Cornell to build a dormitory in the village. 86 Cornell professors have also shaped life in Cayuga Heights in other ways. One longtime resident observed that the influence of faculty families on the operation of the Cayuga Heights School was so great that it “was practically a branch of Cornell ...a kind of private school adjunct to the Cornell faculty.”87 The Cayuga Heights School went through only eighth grade, so older stu- dentshadtoattendIthacaHighSchool.Whenvillageteenagerswentdownthe hilltoattendhighschool,theysometimesfoundtheirnewclassmateshadpre- conceived notions about people from Cayuga Heights. Residents from other parts of Ithaca were less highly educated, more blue collar. Cayuga Heights inhabitants were perceived as bookish, cultured, and aloof. “With unfamiliar- ity grew contempt,” said John Marcham, son of Cayuga Heights’ longtime mayor.“OnedaywhenIhadtoleaveaschoolactivityearlytocatchabustothe Heights, a friend was incredulous. ‘You’re not one of them, are you?’was just the way he put it.” Indicative of the lighthearted tension that existed between hill dwellers and those who lived on the “flats,” intramural teams at Ithaca High School composed mostly of Cayuga Heights residents were sometimes known as the Cayuga Heights Sophisticates.88 BryantParkwasdevelopedataboutthesametimeasCayugaHeightsbythe same developer. Its emergence as a faculty enclave followed a similar path. The land upon which the neighborhood developed had been a wheat farmand fruitorchardownedbySolomonBryant.Followinghisdeath,threeofhischil- dren in partnership with Jared Newman subdivided forty-five acres of the propertyinto161buildinglots.TheBryanttractbeganimmediatelyeastofthe rooming houses in Collegetown. The growth of the neighborhood was stimu- lated by the development of the New York State College of Agriculture. In 1904, the state Legislature created the college and placed it under the control of Cornell. Within a few years, it became the largest college on campus. The saleoflotsinBryantParkbeganin1908.Lotssoldmorequicklythantheydid in Cayuga Heights, in part because parcels were less expensive, but also becauseBryantParkwaslessisolated.By1914,one-thirdofthelotsinBryant Parkhadbeensold,manyofthemtoprofessors.MostofthelotsinBryantPark were built upon by World War II and development began to spread east to the city limits. A 1941 report said that 477 Cornell employees lived in the area, nearly half of them staff members in the College of Agriculture.89 The design of the subdivision, the nature of promotional materials, and the characteristics of deeds make clear that developers sought to establish Bryant Gumprecht / RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN COLLEGE TOWNS 263 Park as a faculty enclave. The initial announcement of the sale of lots noted that the tract was “within three minutes walk of the campus bridge.” Bryant Avenue was cut diagonally across the slope of the tract to createa nearly level road, “so that it would not be necessary to go up hill to reach the University campus.” To distinguish the subdivision from Cornell Heights, the announce- ment pointed out that Bryant Park “is much nearer to both town and campus.” With the College Avenue rooming houses so close, developers imposed deed restrictions designed to prevent student housing from expanding into Bryant Park. Deeds prohibited commercial enterprises and the sale of liquor. They forbademorethanonehousefrombeingbuiltonanylot,topreventhomeown- ersfromerecting separaterentalproperties. Somedeedsalsoincluded astate- mentthat any house built “shallbeplanned and erectedfor useasahome, and not for the purpose of keeping roomers.”90 LiketheircounterpartsinCayugaHeights,facultyinBryantParkhavebeen unusually active in civic affairs. When the Bryant Park Civic Association was formed in 1923 to mount acampaign for the building of aschool in the neigh- borhood, thirty-fiveof forty-seven persons who signed their namesin support of the organization were Cornell employees or their spouses. Ten of its first fourteen presidents were faculty. Although neighborhood organizations are commontoday,theBryantParkgroupwastheonlysuchorganizationinIthaca at the time. The nature of its activities, moreover, showed a strong imprint of academic culture. The group regularly formed committees—on schools, streets, zoning, parking, parks, bus service, and other issues of the day. It pro- duced detailed and remarkably sophisticated studies on matters of neighbor- hoodconcern,inordertobetterpresentthegroup’sviewstocityofficials.One such report in 1946 was actually written on Cornell University stationary.91 Ithaca was essentially fully developed residentially by 1950 and has seen little single-family housing construction since then. The city’s population actuallyfellby3,000peoplebetween1950and1970,thoughithasrebounded since that time because of the tremendous growth of Collegetown and rising on-campus student populations at both Cornell and Ithaca College. Most sin- gle-family housing development since 1950 has taken place outside the city limits,in suburban townssuch asLansing, whereashopping mallwasbuilt in 1974, and Dryden. 92 Cayuga Heights has also grown. It annexed an area north oftheoriginal villagein1953, quadrupling itssizeandmorethandoubling its population in the process. Most of the homes in the newer part of the village were developed after World War II and are smaller and more typically subur- ban in character than those farther south. In 1994, a retirement community catering to Cornell faculty and alumni was developed in this area. 93 As the Ithaca area has suburbanized, faculty have become more residentially dis- persed. Nevertheless, Cayuga Heights and Bryant Park have maintained their status as faculty enclaves to varying degrees. Bryant Park today is a mixed neighborhood, about half owner-occupied houses and half rentals (see Figure 20). Some blocks are inhabited mostly by 264 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / January 2006 faculty families; others are dotted with student houses. As Cornell’s enroll- mentgrewinthe1960sand1970s,thestudent-housingdistrictspilledeastinto Bryant Park. Those streets closest to Collegetown have significant student populations. Most of the neighborhood is zoned for single-family homes, but somehouseshaveapartments,orwererentalsbeforecurrentzoningclassifica- tionswereimplemented.ThethreatthatCollegetownwillfurtherencroachon Bryant Park is an ever-present fear of nonstudent residents. “You always have to be vigilant,” said one resident, the wife of a Cornell professor, echoing the sentiments of homeowners in campus-adjacent neighborhoods nationwide. “You don’t want to live next door to an undergraduate student house. One property, one bad apple, can cause a whole flight.”94 Bryant Park has been able to retain its character as a faculty enclave in the faceofsuchthreatsbecauseitscurrentresidents,liketheoriginalhomebuyers in the area, have been politically adept, a trait that reflects the presence of so many highly educated people in the neighborhood. Homeowners pay particu- lar attention to real estate activity. If a house comes on the market, the Ithaca Common Council representative for the neighborhood will telephone the real estate agent to make sure they know the zoning for the area and to encourage themtoseekfamilybuyers.Ifsomeoneappliesforazoningvariance,apoten- tial precursor to conversion of a single-family house to a rental property, homeownerswillquickly organizetoopposetheapplication. 95 “Whenasitua- tion that makes the neighborhood potentially vulnerable come[s] up ...the word spreads very quickly and before you know it, the phones are buzzing,” Gumprecht / RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN COLLEGE TOWNS 265 Figure 20: Typical street in the faculty enclave of Bryant Park. SOURCE: Photograph by the author. saidalongtimeresident.“Therewillbeameetingatsomebody’shouse,and,if necessary,asmallarmywillmarchdownthehilltothecitycouncilchambers. Wecomeinlargenumbersandwe’reprettysavvyabouthowtoplaythepoliti- cal game. There’s a level of sophistication that I think academics are able to bringtobearonthesethingsthatallowsthemtofightthesekindsoffights.”96 Whydoprofessorsseemmorelikelytoliveclosetotheirplacesofemploy- ment than other workers? Numerous residents of Bryant Park and Cayuga Heightsspokeofadesiretobeabletowalktowork.Indeed,residentsoffifty- ninecollegetownsthatarethefocusofalargerprojectuponwhichthisstudyis basedwerefourtimesmorelikelytowalktoworkandseventimesmorelikely tocommutebybicyclein2000thantheU.S.populationingeneral.Academics tend to work more irregular hours than workers in other industries, and are more likely to go to their offices at night and on weekends, which makes con- venience desirable. Faculty (and others) are also drawn to college campuses because they possess amenities—concert halls, museums, recreational facili- ties, park-like green spaces—that other workplaces do not. Joel Savishinksy, who teaches at Ithaca College but chooses to live near Cornell, is a case in point. “I don’t work [at Cornell], I don’t teach here, but I subscribe to the the- ater series,” he said. “I can walk to the performing arts center. I love the fact that I can walk out my front door and in five minutes be up at the graduate library at Cornell. I love having Cornell next door.”97 CONCLUSION Alison Lurie, in her novel The War Between the Tates, set in a thinly dis- guised Ithaca in the turbulent 1960s, captures the peculiar flavor of college towns and the fractured nature of their social environments. She writes about the book’s protagonist, a political science professor: “Brian had known for some time that he and his colleagues were not living in the America they had grownupin.Itwasonlyrecentlythoughthathehadrealizedtheywerealsonot living in present-day America, but in another country or city-state with some- whatdifferentcharacteristics.Theimportantfactaboutthisstate ...isthatthe greater majority of its population is aged eighteen to twenty-two. Naturally, the physical appearances, interests, activities, preferences and prejudices of thismajorityarethenorm....Culturalandpoliticallifeisgearedtotheirstan- dards,andanydeviationfromthemisasocialhandicap.”Incollegetowns,fac- ultylikeBrianmaygoverntheclassroom,buttheirinfluenceislesssignificant offcampus.“LikeaChinamaninNewYork,[Brian]looksdifferent;hespeaks differently....Helikesdifferentfoodsandwearsdifferentclothesandhasdif- ferent recreations,” writes Lurie. “Naturally he is regarded with suspicion by the natives.”98 Itisthosedifferencesthatalsoshapetheresidentialmosaicofcollegetowns like Ithaca. Young people are dominant, but they are not distributed evenly 266 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / January 2006 across the city. Undergraduates live apart from permanent residents, both by choice and because year-round residents do all they can to keep them out of their neighborhoods. Some students live in fraternity and sorority houses. Someliveinthebeat-upoldrentalsofthestudentghetto.Stillotherspreferthe expensive new apartment buildings that are indicative of the changing face of college communities. Faculty and undergraduates work and play in close proximity, but they rarely live near one another, “by silent consent from both sides,” as one longtime Cayuga Heights resident observed. 99 The distinctive characterofcollegetownresidentialdistrictsisoneaspectoflifeintheAmeri- can college town that helps give it its unusual personality and contributes to making it a unique type of urban place. 1.This studyconsidersas a college town any city wherea college oruniversity, andthe culturesit cre- ates,exertsadominantinfluenceoverthecharacteroftheplace.Ihavedescribedingreaterdetailelsewhere the distinguishing characteristics of college towns. See Blake Gumprecht, “The American College Town,” Geographical Review 93:1 (January 2003), 51–80. 2. In 2000,one-thirdof residents in fifty-ninecollege towns that are the focus of a larger research pro- ject were eighteen to twenty-four years old. Nationwide, just one in ten were in that age group. Adult resi- dentsinthestudytownsweretwiceaslikelyastheoverallU.S.populationtopossessacollegedegree.One- thirdpossessedagraduatedegree,threetimestheU.S.average.U.S.BureauoftheCensus,“Census2000,” http://factfinder.census.gov/ (accessed January 22, 2004). 3.CarllEverettLaddandSeymourMartinLipset,TheDividedAcademy:ProfessorsandPolitics (New York, 1975); Richard F. Hamilton and Lowell L. Hargens, “The Politics of the Professors: Self-Identifica- tions, 1969–1984,”Social Forces 71:3 (1993), 603–627. 4. Ithaca’s populationcharacteristics are typical of college towns nationwide.In 2000,the medianage wastwenty-twoyearsoldandmorethanhalfofresidentswereagedeighteentotwenty-four.Sixintenadult residentspossessedacollegedegree,one-thirdheldagraduatedegree,andnearlyoneintenhadadoctorate. U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Census 2000.” 5.DanSnodderly,“Downtown,”inCarolU.Sisler,MargaretHobbie,andJaneMarshDieckmann,eds., Ithaca’s Neighborhoods:The Rhine, the Hill, and The Goose Pasture (Ithaca, N.Y., 1988), 36–37; Clayton W. Smith, “South Hill,” in Carol U. Sisler, Margaret Hobbie, and Jane Marsh Dieckmann, eds.,Ithaca’s Neighborhoods: The Rhine, the Hill, and The Goose Pasture (Ithaca, N.Y., 1988), 85–87; Ithaca College, “Former Presidents,” http://www.ithaca.edu/president/former_presidents.php (accessed April 13, 2004); Ithaca College, “Common Data Set, 2003–2004,” http://www.ithaca.edu/ir/cdsindex.html (accessed April 13, 2004). 6. Gretchen Sachse, “Ithaca: An Overview,” in Carol U. Sisler, Margaret Hobbie, and Jane Marsh Dieckmann,eds.,Ithaca’sNeighborhoods:TheRhine,theHill,andTheGoosePasture (Ithaca,N.Y.,1988), 9,14;Smith,“SouthHill,”83–84;AmyHumber,“FallCreek,”inCarolU.Sisler,MargaretHobbie,andJane MarshDieckmann,eds.,Ithaca’sNeighborhoods:TheRhine,theHill,andTheGoosePasture (Ithaca,N.Y., 1988), 41–46. 7. Manufacturing’s share of total employment in Tompkins County, where Ithaca is located, declined from 45.7 percent in 1948 to 9.4 percent in 2001. From 1972 to 1992, Tompkins County experienced a net loss of 1,500 jobs as three major factories employing 3,300 people closed. See Tompkins County Area Development,Economic Development Strategy (Ithaca, N.Y., 1999), 7; Tompkins County Area Develop- ment and Tompkins County Planning Department, “Tompkins County Economic Development Strategy: Phase One, The Database and Comparisons” (Ithaca, N.Y., 1992), 23; U.S. Bureau of the Census,County Business Patterns, Tompkins County, New York, 2001, http://censtats.census.gov/cbpnaic/cbpnaic.shtml (accessed April 20, 2004). Gumprecht / RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN COLLEGE TOWNS 267 8. TCAD/TCPD, “Tompkins County Economic Development Strategy,” 1992, 8; Cornell University, Institutional Research and Planning, “Total Cornell Workforce, 1993–1994to 2003–2004,” http://dpb.cor- nell.edu/irp/pdf/FactBook/HR/workforce.pdf (accessed April 15, 2004); Ithaca College, Institutional Research, “Facts in Brief,” http://www.ithaca.edu/ir/factsfigs.html (accessed April 15, 2004); U.S. Bureau oftheCensus,“IndustrybySex—PercentDistribution:2000”(TableQT-P30),Ithacacity,NewYork,http:// factfinder.census.gov (accessed April 15, 2004); Cornell University, Institutional Research and Planning, “CornellUniversityEnrollment,TotalRegistration,IthacaCampus,Fall1868—Current,”unpublished table. 9.JackL.AnsonandRobertF.MarchesaniJr.,eds.,Baird’sManualofAmericanCollegeFraternities, 20th ed. (Indianapolis, 1991). 10.LeoReisberg,“FraternitiesinDecline,”ChronicleofHigherEducation,January7,2000,A59–A62. Estimates on the proportionof students who belongto fraternities and sororities are based on data obtained from a variety of sources about the fifty-nine college towns that are the focus of a larger research project. 11. Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz,Campus Life: Undergraduate Cultures From the End of the Eighteenth Century to the Present (Chicago,1987),274.For a sympatheticbut objective historyof Greek letter societ- ies,seeKentChristopherOwen,“ReflectionsontheCollegeFraternityandItsChangingNature,”inJackL. AnsonandRobertF.MarchesaniJr.,eds.,Baird’sManualofAmericanCollegeFraternities,20thed.(India- napolis, 1991), I1–I24. 12. Richard Ford, “Rules of the House,”Esquire, June 1986, 231. 13. Frederick Rudolph,The American College and University: A History (New York, 1968), 138–141; Owen, “Reflections on the College Fraternity,” I2, I14. 14. Rudolph,American College and University, 146; Andrew Dickson White, “College Fraternities,” Forum ,May1887,251;WatermanThomasHewett,CornellUniversity:AHistory,Vol.3(NewYork,1905),13. 15. Horowitz,Campus Life, 111–112; James H. Goodsell, “The College Homesteads of Greek Letter Men,” in Greek Letter Men of Central New York, South, comp. Will J. Maxwell (New York, 1901), 39–48; Scott Meacham, “Halls, Toms and Houses: Student Society Architecture at Dartmouth,” http:// www.dartmo.com/halls/index.html(accessedJanuary22,2004);White,“CollegeFraternities,”246;Morris Bishop,A History of Cornell (Ithaca, N.Y., 1962), 81–82, 95, 138; Kermit Carlyle Parsons,The Cornell Campus: A History of Its Planning and Development (Ithaca, N.Y., 1968), 91, 101, 219. 16.Femalestudentsmadeup20percentofCornell’s enrollmentin1950.Inthatyear, Cornellhadfifty- fivefraternities,butonlyfifteensororities.Afterthat,femaleshareofenrollmentsteadilyclimbed.By2000, 46 percent of Cornell students were women. The number of Cornell sororities has grown, but not as fast as enrollment, increasing to nineteen by 2000. Cornell, “Cornell University Enrollment, Fall 1868–Current”; CornellUniversity,DirectoryofStudents,1950–1951 (Ithaca,N.Y.,1950);CornellUniversity,Fraternity& Sorority Advisory Council,2001–2002 Annual Report (Ithaca, N.Y., 2002), 30. 17. Willard Austin, “Fraternities at Cornell University,”College Fraternity, April 1893, 14; G. H. Hooker, “Cornell Fraternities: A Sketch,”Cornell Era, April 1901, 315; Hjalmar H. Boyesen, “Chi Chap- ter,” in Peter A. Babauer, ed.,The Annals of Psi Upsilon, 1833–1941 (New York, 1941), 232–233; H. Wil- liam Fogle, Jr.,The Cornell Deke House: A History of the 1893 Lodge (Ithaca, N.Y., 1993), 1; Knight Kiplinger,“TheHistoryoftheChapter[AlphaDelta Phi,CornellUniversity],” unpublishedmanuscript,no date. 18.Kiplinger,“TheHistoryoftheChapter”;A.L.Reed,ed.,AlphaDeltaPhi:TheHistory,Function& Structure of the Fraternity, Cornell Chapter, Founded 1869 (Ithaca, N.Y., n.d.), 27. 19. Cornell University,Proceedings of the Board of Trustees of Cornell University, April 1965–July 1885 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1940), 223; Hewett,Cornell University, 20; Carol U. Sisler, “East Hill,” in Carol U. Sisler, Margaret Hobbie, and Jane Marsh Dieckmann, eds.,Ithaca’s Neighborhoods: The Rhine, the Hill, and The Goose Pasture (Ithaca, N.Y., 1988), 59, 66. 20. Minutes, Cornell chapter, Alpha Delta Phi, April 20, 1900, Alpha Delta Phi chapter records, #37\4\2101, Department of Manuscripts and University Archives, Cornell University. 21. Sanborn Map. Co., fire insurance maps for Ithaca, N.Y., 1893, 1898, 1904. 22.Kiplinger,“TheHistoryoftheChapter”;EdwardR.Alexander,AlphaDeltaPhiHome,CornellUni- versity (Ithaca, N.Y., 1902), 6; Cornell University,Sixth Annual Report of President Schurman, 1897–98 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1898), 59–60. 23. Minutes, Cornell chapter, Alpha Delta Phi, April 20, 1900. 24.Kiplinger,“HistoryoftheChapter”;Hewett,CornellUniversity,20;“Psi.U.ChapterHouse,”Ithaca DailyJournal,June23,1884,3;IthacaDemocrat,June18,1891,5;“FraternityHouses,”IthacaDailyJour- nal,January2,1892,3;Fogle,CornellDekeHouse,6;“SigmaChiHouse,”IthacaDailyJournal,December 15,1900,3; SanbornMap Co., fire insurancemaps for Ithaca, N.Y., 1893,1898;Parsons,Cornell Campus, 268 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / January 2006 119,122;“Receptions:FraternitiesGiveDelightfulHouseParties,”IthacaDailyJournal,February1,1899, 6; Jane Marsh Dieckmann,A Short History of Tompkins County (Ithaca, N.Y., 1986), 47; Geoffrey M. Gyrisco, “A Guide to the Works of William Henry Miller, Ithaca’s Architect,” typescript, December 1978, Fine Arts Library, Cornell University. 25. Minutes, Cornell chapter, Alpha Delta Phi, April 20, 1900. 26.“AlphaDeltaPhi:FraternitytoBuildFineHomeonUniversityHill,”IthacaDailyJournal,April10, 1902, 8. Both the Chi Psi and Alpha Delta Phi chapter houses were destroyed by fire, but were rebuilt, althoughindifferentstyles.See“FireinChiPsiFraternityHouseResultsintheLossofSevenLives,”Ithaca Daily Journal, December 7, 1906, 3; “Chi Psi House Plans Completed,”Ithaca Daily Journal, August 3, 1907; Reed,Alpha Delta Phi, 62. 27.“AlphaDeltaPhi’sUniqueBuilding,”IthacaDailyJournal,July14,1908,7;Kiplinger,“Historyof the Chapter”; “Three New Fraternity Houses,”Cornell Daily Sun, October 2, 1903, 1; “Fraternity House Changes: Two New LodgesBuildingand Four Others Altered,”Cornell Daily Sun, September26, 1902,3; Sanborn Map Co., fire insurance maps for Ithaca, N.Y., 1910. 28.Horowitz,CampusLife,131,138–140,144;Owen,“ReflectionsontheCollegeFraternity,”I3;O.D. von Engeln,ConcerningCornell (Ithaca,N.Y., 1917),299;Bishop,History of Cornell, 293,304–305,403, 420;Hewett,CornellUniversity,20–21;“NewBuildingsBeingErected:HomesfortheLawSchoolandfor Fraternities,”CornellEra,October24,1891,37–39;“ChiPsiReception,”IthacaDailyJournal,November 21, 1896; “Receptions”; Kenneth L. Roberts, “Far Above Cayuga’s Waters,”Saturday Evening Post, February 2, 1929, 57. 29.M.G.Lord,“TheGreekRitesofExclusion,”TheNation,July4,1987,12;LawrenceBancroft(Cor- nellchapter,AlphiPhiAlpha),e-mailmessagetotheauthor,April27,2004;Bishop,HistoryofCornell,404; Cornell University,1911 Cornellian (Ithaca, N.Y., n.d.), 180; Cornell University,Directory of the Univer- sity, First Term, 1925–26 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1925), 109. 30. Cornell,Directory, 1925–26, 109; Bishop,History of Cornell, 448. 31. Charles Thompson,Halfway Down the Stairs (New York, 1957), 99–101. 32.CornellUniversity,OfficeoftheDeanofStudents,“AReportonSomeAspectsofFraternityLifeat Cornell University,” September 1960, 10; Owen, “Reflections on the College Fraternity,” I22–I23; Horowitz,Campus Life, 239, 244; Cornell University,Student Directory (Ithaca, N.Y., 1960), 2; Cornell University,Student Directory, 1975–1976 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1975), 6–7; Deborah Huffman, “Trustees Imple- ment Anti-Bias Legislation for All Living Units,”Cornell Daily Sun, February 23, 1968, 1; Richard M. Warshauer, “White Attempt to Break In Sparks Dispute Over Cops,”Cornell Daily Sun, April 20, 1969, extra edition, 1. 33. Cornell University, University Faculty Committee on Student Affairs, “Fraternities at Cornell (The MullerReport),”March1,1961,6,FraternityandSororityAffairsRecords,#37/4/3027,Box2,Divisionof Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library. 34. Cornell Dean of Students, “Fraternity Life,” 5. G. Armour Craig, former president of Amherst Col- lege,commentedthatthereasonmanysmallcollegesdonotabolishtheirGreeksystemsisbecauseofafear that such reforms will reduce alumni giving. See Lord, “Greek Rites of Exclusion,” 12. 35.ErnestL.Boyer,College:TheUndergraduateExperienceinAmerica (NewYork,1987),208;Simon J. Bronner,Piled Higher and Deeper: The Folklore of Student Life (Little Rock, Ark., 1995), 127; Owen, “Reflections on the College Fraternity,” I23; Cornell University,Student Directory, 1975–1976 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1975), 6–7; Cornell University,Student Directory, 1985–1986 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1985), 8. 36. Dan Meyer (member, boardof directors, Cornell chapter of Phi Kappa Psi), telephoneconversation with the author, October 25, 2002. 37.William A. Bryan,“ContemporaryFraternityandSororityIssues,” in R. B. Winston,Jr., W. R. Net- tles III, and J. H. Opper, eds.,Fraternities andSororities on the Contemporary College Campus (San Fran- cisco,1987),37–56;GeorgeD.KuhandJamesC.Arnold,“LiquidBonding:ACulturalAnalysisoftheRole of Alcohol in Fraternity Pledgeship,”Journal of College Student Development 34 (September 1993), 327– 334;ValerieNicolette,“CanGreeksWithstandNegativeAttention?,”CornellDailySun,December4,1989, 23–24; Peggy Reeves Sanday,Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood, and Privilege on Campus (New York, 1990); Hank Nuwer,Wrongs of Passage: Fraternities, Sororities, Hazing, and Binge Drinking (Bloomington, 1999). 38. Cornell University, Fraternity and Sorority Affairs, “Social Responsibility Policy,” http:// www.dos.cornell.edu/dos/fsa/socialpol/SocialPolicy.html(accessedJanuary22,2004);ScottConroe,“Fra- ternities Forever,”Cornell Magazine, May/June 1999, 30–37; Chris Koza (president, Cornell University Interfraternity Council, member, Chi Psi fraternity), interview by the author, Ithaca, N.Y., April 28, 2000. Gumprecht / RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN COLLEGE TOWNS 269 39. In Fall 2003, eight-two percent of members in fraternities and sororities that were part of the InterfraternityCouncilorthePanhellenicAssociation(whichincludeallbutfourteenorganizationsthatare membersoftheMulticulturalGreekLetterCouncil)werewhite,comparedto59.4percentofallundergradu- ates.LessthantwopercentofIFCandPAsocietymemberswereblack,comparedto4.7percentofallunder- graduates, and six percent were Asian, compared to 16.4 percent of undergraduates. Cornell University, Fraternity and Sorority Affairs, “Membership Demographics,” Fall 2003, unpublished table; Cornell Uni- versity, Institutional Research and Planning, “Common Data Set, 2003–2004,” http://dpb.cornell.edu/irp/ pdf/CDS/cds_2003-04.pdf (accessed April 29, 2004). 40. Reisberg, “Fraternities in Decline,” A59; Conroe, “Fraternities Forever,” 34. 41. Cornell University, Fraternity & Sorority Advisory Council,2001–2002 Annual Report (Ithaca, N.Y., 2002), 29–30; comment from unidentified fraternity member, Chi Psi fraternity, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., April 28, 2000. 42. Horowitz,Campus Life, 250; Avikam Wygodski, “Neighborhood Analysis of the Student Ghetto” (master’s thesis, University of Florida, 1979), 3. 43.LynnA.StaeheliandAlbertThompson,“Citizenship,Community,andStrugglesforPublicSpace,” Professional Geographer 49:1 (February 1997), 28–38; Jason Kobylarek et al., “Past, Present, and Future Relationships Between the University of Kansas and Adjacent Neighborhoods,” student research paper, UBPL 502/802, University of Kansas, July 2001, http://www.users.muohio.edu/karrowrs/College/ sTU_rESEARCH_ku.pdf(accessedJanuary22,2004);WilliamL.Partridge,TheHippieGhetto:TheNatu- ralHistoryofaSubculture (NewYork,1973);BethKassab,“MayorEnvisionsImproved‘StudentGhettos’ NearU.Florida,”IndependentFloridaAlligator [UniversityofFlorida],January14,1999;BrianD.Vargo, “Slumming in Newark,”Delaware Today, September 1999, 68–74. 44. Christopher C. Paine, “Court Rules Against City in Landlord Case,”Herald-Times [Bloomington, Indiana], May 20, 2002, A1; Nick Madigan, “Peace Plan in Boulder Bans Sofas on Porches,”New York Times, May 30, 2002, A14. 45. Dieckmann,Short History of Tompkins County, 43; Jane Marsh Dieckmann, “The University and Collegetown,” in Carol U. Sisler, Margaret Hobbie, and Jane Marsh Dieckmann, eds.,Ithaca’s Neighbor- hoods: The Rhine, the Hill, and The Goose Pasture (Ithaca, N.Y., 1988), 157–158. 46. Bishop,History of Cornell, 92. 47. Parsons,Cornell Campus, 91, 102. 48. Bishop,History of Cornell, 80. 49.“AWordtoWiseIthacans,”CornellEra,March13,1869,5;Parsons,CornellCampus,105;Bishop, History of Cornell, 98. 50. Parsons,Cornell Campus, 104; Dieckmann, “University and Collegetown,” 164; “Editorial,”Cor- nell Era, April 26, 1889, 1. 51. Bishop,History of Cornell, 359. 52. Dieckmann, “University and Collegetown,” 169. 53. “Where the Students Live: Growth of the Various Rooming Sections on East Hill,”Cornell Alumni News, February 7, 1912, 207; Sanborn Map Co., fire insurance maps for Ithaca, N.Y., 1904, 1910; H. A. Manning,comp.,Manning’s Ithaca (New York) Directory for Year BeginningJanuary, 1930 (Schenectady, N.Y., 1930). 54.MorrisBishop,“OnBoarding-HousesandLandladies,”CornellEra,October1912,38–41;“Report of the Freshman Advisory Committee,”Cornell Alumni News, December 18, 1913, 155–156; “Tackling Rooming House Problems,”Cornell Alumni News, May 21, 1914, 406. 55. Bishop,History of Cornell, 403; Thompson,Halfway Down the Stairs, 128. 56. Roger Geiger, “The Ten Generations of American Higher Education,” in American Higher Educa- tion in the Twenty-first Century, Philip G. Altbach, Robert O. Berdahl, and Patricia Gumport, eds. (Balti- more, 1999), 61. 57.JohnHarpandPhilipTaietz,“TheCornellStudent,1950and1962:AComparativeReport”(Ithaca, N.Y., 1964), 25. Between 1950 and 1962, the percentage of Cornell students living in rooming houses declinedfromtwenty-threetoeightpercent,whilethepercentagelivinginapartmentsincreasedfromseven to twenty-nine percent. 58.JimMyers,“Collegetown,”IthacaJournal,August22,1975,WelcomeStudentsissue,6–8,13;John Lofland,“The YouthGhetto: A Perspective on the ‘Cities of Youth’AroundOur Large Universities,”Jour- nal of Higher Education 39:3 (March 1968), 121–143; Partridge,Hippie Ghetto; Richard Fariña,Been Down So Long it Looks Like Up to Me (New York, 1966); John Marcham, “A Question of Turf,”Cornell Alumni News, July 1972, 25. 270 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / January 2006 59. Myers, “Collegetown,” 5. 60. Myers, “Collegetown,” 8–11. 61.JosephMasciandRobertA.Molofsky,“PoliceGasC-TownCrowd:DisagreementOverBlockParty Causes Skirmish in Streets,”Cornell Daily Sun, May 14, 1972, Extra edition, 1; Dick Brass, “Town vs. Gown: Two Nights in Ithaca,”Cornell Alumni News, July 1972, 16–23. 62. Jan Mireles, “Is Collegetown Development a Boon or Bust,”Ithaca Journal, May 21, 1990, 9A. 63.Cornell,“CornellUniversityEnrollment,Fall1868–Current”;SolL.Erdman,“FCSAAllowsCoeds to Live Off Campus,”Cornell Daily Sun, February 9, 1965, 1; “Residence Rules are Suspended,”Ithaca Journal, June 5, 1969;David F. Maisel, “HousingShortagePlagues University: EnrollmentIncrease Over- taxes Supply,”Cornell Daily Sun, September 20, 1965, 1; Patricia Nordheimer, “University Ready to Enforce Housing-Approval Ruling,”Ithaca Journal, January 17, 1966, 9; Sue Strandberg, “Tenants Union BecomingActive,”IthacaJournal,February6,1969;IthacaTenantsUnion,TenantsArising:ACaseStudy of Dynamic Management of Existing Buildings (Ithaca, N.Y., 1974); Allison Walzer, “Fane Tenants To Strike,”Cornell Daily Sun, March 24, 1974, 1. 64. Rob Simon, “A Moveable Lease,”Cornell Daily Sun, October 6, 1975, 5. 65. Carol Irene Chock, “Collegetown Redevelopment: An Analysis of a Public/Private Partnership in Ithaca, New York” (master’s thesis, Cornell University, 1985); H. Matthys Van Court (director of planning and development, city of Ithaca), interview by the author, Ithaca, N.Y., May 4, 2000. 66. Mireles, “Collegetown Development,” 9A; Alex Leary, “Second City: Landlords Watch Warily as Collegetown Continues to Take on a Life of Its Own,”Ithaca Times, May 22, 1997, 27–29. 67. “New Student Housing Helps Ease Local Rental Market,” clipping of unknown origin, September 1989;DianeHeath,“FromHomestoHighRises:C-TownReflectsNewTrends,”CornellDailySun,Febru- ary11,1988,1,7;NinaFox,“NewHousingComplexGainsInterestAmongIowaStateU.Students,”Iowa State Daily [Iowa State University], January 12, 2000; Jeff Johncox, “Apartments Offer Students a Better Life,”OklahomaDaily [UniversityofOklahoma],June4,2003.SeealsoSterlingUniversityHousing’sWeb site: http://www.sterlinghousing.com/ (accessed January 22, 2004). 68. Myers, “Collegetown,” 6. 69.EliLehrer,“NewEraDawnsinCollegetown:BusinessMixisShiftingTowardEntertainment,Away FromRetail,”IthacaJournal,July30,1997,2A;JasonFane,commentspreparedforconferenceonstudent housing, Cornell University, April 18, 2000; Jason Fane (real estate developer, Ithaca Renting Company), interview by the author, Ithaca, N.Y., May 1, 2000. 70. Ithaca Renting Company, “Current Prices, 2003–2004,” February 11, 2003, http:// www.ithacarenting.com/current_prices.htm(accessedFebruary14,2003);IthacaRentalsandRenovations, “Eddygate Park Apartments Current Availabilities for 2003,” http://www.ithaca-rentals.com/egp.htm (accessed February 14, 2003); 312 College Avenue Web site, http://www.312collegeave.com/ (accessed February 14, 2003). 71. In 2000,populationdensity for Census Tract 2, TompkinsCounty, the boundariesof which roughly approximatethose of Collegetown, was 36,135people per square mile, the median age was 21.7 years old, ninety percent of residents were college students, and ninety-seven percent of housing units were rentals. U.S.BureauoftheCensus,“Census2000.”Comparisonsfor1980and2000arebasedonU.S.Bureauofthe Census,1980 Census of Population and Housing, Neighborhood Statistics Program: New York (Ithaca) (Washington, 1983); City of Ithaca, Department of Planning and Development, “Neighborhood Statistics Program, Census 2000, SF1 & SF3 Releases, April 2004, http://www.ithacamaps.org/download/census/ 2000NeighborhoodStatistics.pdf (accessed May 14, 2004). Asians made up 14.1 percent of Cornell’s stu- dentbodyin2000,comparedto3.6percentin1980.SeeCornellUniversity,InstitutionalResearchandPlan- ning, “Total Enrollment by Race/Ethnic Status, Fall 1980 Through Fall 1983,” http://dpb.cornell.edu/irp/ pdf/FactBook/Enrollment/Total/ithaca_re.pdf (accessed April 27, 2004). 72.JohnA.Jakle,“TwentiethCenturyRevivalArchitectureandtheGentry,”JournalofCulturalGeog- raphy 4:1 (Fall/Winter 1983), 37; Gorman Beauchamp. “Dissing the Middle Class: The View From Burns Park.”American Scholar 64:3 (1995), 337. 73. U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Census 2000.” 74. Margaret Hobbie (real estate agent, Ithaca), interview by the author, Ithaca, N.Y., April 29, 2000; George J. Staller (professor, Department of Economics, Cornell University), telephone interview by the author, July 25, 2002. 75.AlfredM.Brooks,“HousesforCollegeProfessors,”SchoolandSociety 18:448(July28,1923),116– 118; Deborah Lynn Balliew,College Station, Texas: 1938/1988 (College Station, 1987), 18; Durham Plan- ning Board,Town of Durham Master Plan 2000 (Durham, N.H., 2000), 10.3. Gumprecht / RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN COLLEGE TOWNS 271 76. Parsons,Cornell Campus, 113–115. 77.JohnRogerAhlfeld,“TheFirstCenturyofthePhysicalDevelopmentofIthaca,NewYork”(master’s thesis, Cornell University, 1966), 150. 78. “A Word to Wise Ithacans.” 79. “Cornell Heights: Ithaca’s Sightly Residence Park Rapidly Improving,”Ithaca Daily Journal, May 10, 1899, 8. 80.CarolU.Sisler,EnterprisingFamilies,Ithaca,NewYork:TheirHousesandBusinesses (Ithaca,N.Y., 1986), 87, 90; Carol U. Sisler, “Cornell Heights,” in Carol U. Sisler, Margaret Hobbie, and Jane Marsh Dieckmann,eds.,Ithaca’sNeighborhoods:TheRhine,theHill,andTheGoosePasture (Ithaca,N.Y.,1988), 178;HistoricIthaca,CornellHeightsHistoricDistrict:AnArchitecturalWalkingandDrivingTour (Ithaca, N.Y., 1998), 8. 81. Sisler, “Cornell Heights,” 180–181, 186; Sisler,Enterprising Families, 94–95. 82. Parsons,Cornell Campus, 217; Sisler, “Cornell Heights,” 186. 83. “White Park,” undated brochure, Jared Treman Newman papers, #2157, Box 38, Division of Rare andManuscriptCollections,CornellUniversityLibrary;Sisler,EnterprisingFamilies,105–106;A.Robert Jaeger,“CayugaHeightsandtheAmericanSuburb,”unpublishedmanuscript,History333,CornellUniver- sity, May 1983, 15, 21; Kenneth T. Jackson,Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanizationof the United States (New York, 1985), 79–81. 84. Jared T. Newman, “To Alumni Intending Sometime to Locate in Ithaca; and Others Seeking Home Sites Near the Cornell Campus,”Cornell Alumni News, October 21, 1915, 47; “White Park”; Agreement between Jared T. Newman and Charles H. Blood and Karl McKay Wiegand, September 29, 1914, Jared Treman Newman papers, #2157, Box 9, Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library. 85. Jared T. Newman to Charles P. Gray Co., December 15, 1920; Letter from Jared T. Newman for which first page is missing, February23, 1921;Jared T. Newman to John T. Parson, July 17, 1928;Jared T. NewmantoW.W.Fisk,May31,1922.AlllettersfromCayugaHeightsCollection,DeWittHistoricalSoci- ety of Tompkins County, Ithaca, N.Y. 86. Minutes, Board of Trustees, Cayuga Heights, 1923–2002, Marcham Hall [Village Hall], Cayuga Heights; F. G. Marcham, “Cayuga Heights Memories,” prepared by John Marcham, unpublished manu- script, 26, 29, 37, 92; “Annexation Rejected By Heights,”Ithaca Journal, December 30, 1954, 3. 87.M. H. Abrams(professorof Englishemeritus,Cornell University),interview by the author, Cayuga Heights, N.Y., April 30, 2000. 88. Marcham,“Question of Turf,” p. 24; Ronald Anderson(formerCornell faculty memberand mayor, village of Cayuga Heights), interview by the author, Cayuga Heights, N.Y., April 28, 2000. 89. Margaret Hobbie, “Belle Sherman,” in Carol U. Sisler, Margaret Hobbie, and Jane Marsh Dieckmann,eds.,Ithaca’sNeighborhoods:TheRhine,theHill,andTheGoosePasture (Ithaca,N.Y.,1988), 193; “New Residence Tract: A Place for Homes,”Ithaca Daily Journal, September 19, 1908, 2; Rebecca Bernstein, “A History of the Bryant Park Neighborhood, Ithaca, New York: An Architectural and Social StudyofHouseholdUse”(master’sthesis,CornellUniversity,1988),21–25,30;BryantParkCivicAssocia- tion records, 1941–1951, #3627, Department of Manuscripts and University Archives, Cornell University Library. 90.“NewResidenceTract:APlaceforHomes,”IthacaDailyJournal,September19,1908,2;Deed,Lot 168, Bryant Park, agreement between Harold E. Ross and Bryant Park Land Co., June 15, 1910, Jared Treman Newman papers, #2157, Box 9, Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library. 91. Bryant Park Civic Association records, 1941–1951. 92. Between 1950and 2000,populationin the city of Ithaca increased by only thirty people,or 0.1 per- cent,whilepopulationinTompkinsCountyincreasedby37,379people,or63.2percent.U.S.Bureauofthe Census,CensusofPopulation:1950,Volume1:NumberofInhabitants(Washington,1952);U.S.Bureauof theCensus,1970CensusofPopulation,CharacteristicsofthePopulation,NumberofInhabitants(Washing- ton, 1972); U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Census 2000,” http://factfinder.census.gov/ (accessed January 22, 2004);NewYorkStateDepartmentofEconomicDevelopment,StateDataCenter,“PopulationofNewYork State By County, 1790–1990,” July 2000, http://www.nylovesbiz.com/nysdc/StateCountyPopests/ CountyPopHistory.PDF (accessed May 4, 2004). 93.JohnMunschauer,“VillageofCayugaHeights,1940toPresent,”inJaneMarshDieckmann,ed.,The Towns of Tompkins County (Ithaca, N.Y., 1998), 37, 42. 272 JOURNAL OF URBAN HISTORY / January 2006 94. Ellen McCollister (resident, Bryant Park neighborhood), interview by the author, Ithaca, N.Y., August 11, 2002. 95. Susan Blumenthal (former alderperson, Ithaca Common Council), interview by the author, Ithaca, N.Y., August 5, 2002. 96.JoelSavishinsky(professorofsocialsciences,IthacaCollege,resident,BryantParkneighborhood), interview by the author, Ithaca, N.Y., 9 August 2002. 97. U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Census 2000”; Savishinsky, interview. 98. Alison Lurie,The War Between the Tates (New York, 1974), 36–37. 99. Abrams, interview. Blake Gumprecht is an assistant professor of geography and American studies at the University of New Hampshire. He has published three other studies about college townsandiscompletingabookonthesubjectthatwillbepublishedbyRoutledge.He is also the author of The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), winner of the Association of American Ge- ographers’J.B.JacksonPrize,aswellasarticlesabouturbantreeplantingontheGreat Plains, the role of place in the music of West Texas, and the development of an Oklahoma town as an international grain center. Gumprecht / RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN COLLEGE TOWNS 273 201 COLLEGE AVE.PROJECT SPECIAL NOTE:(1)The draft amended Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF)—Part 3,(2) the draft amended Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance Resolution,and (3)the draft Planning Board resolution requesting a formal Zoning Determination for the project are all still being reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and will be distributed shortly,as part of a revised agenda packet and as hardcopies at the Planning Board meeting. PROPOSED RESOLUTION Apartment Building Final Site Plan Approval 201 College Ave. Site Plan Review City of Ithaca Planning & Development Board August 23, 2016 WHEREAS: an application has been submitted for review and approval by the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board for an apartment building to be located at 201 College Avenue, by Noah Demarest for Visum Development Group, and WHEREAS:the applicant proposes to build a 5-story apartment building on a 0.173-acre lot at the corner of College Avenue and Bool Street. The building will contain 44 dwelling units with approximately 76 bedrooms. The basement level will have a trash room, a fitness room with windows looking out to the street, and a bicycle garage for approximately 20 bikes with ramp access from a doorway on Bool Street. Other proposed amenities include landscaping, lighting, 4 outdoor bike racks, and street trees. The site has a 17’ difference in elevation from the southwest corner to the northeast corner, rising from 690.00 to 707.00. Site development will require removal of the existing 2 story wood-framed house containing 1 apartment with 12 bedrooms, gravel parking area, and five trees. The project is in the MU 1 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD). The originally proposed project required an Area Variance for rear yard setback, and WHEREAS: this is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), §176-4 B. (1) (k) & (h) [4], and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), §617.4 (b) (11), and is subject to Environmental Review, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did, on May 24, 2016 declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project, and WHEREAS: this Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did on May 24, 2016 review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff; drawings titled “Demo and Layout Plan,” “Grading and Planting Plans,” “Level 1,” “Basement,” and “Levels 3-5,” dated 3/29/16; and “Southwest Corner Perspective,” “West Elevation,” “East Elevation,” “South Elevation - Bool St. Façade,” and “North Elevation,” dated 4/13/16; and “North to South Site Section,” and “East to West Site Section,” dated 5/11/16 and prepared by STREAM Collaborative; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, Tompkins County Planning Department, and other interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received have been considered, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determined that the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and issued Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on May 24, 2016, and WHEREAS: the project met with the Design Review Committee on June 7, 2016, and WHEREAS: this Board did on June 28, 2016 review and accept as adequate: new and revised drawings titled “Exterior Building Materials,” “Site Materials,” “Basement Plan,” “1st and 2nd Floor Plans,” “3rd and 4th Floor Plans,” “3rd and 4th Mezzanine Plans,” “5th Floor Plans,” “5th Floor Mezzanine Plan,” and ”Roof Plan,” dated June 14, 2016; and “Demo and Layout Plan,” “Grading and Planting Plans,” “East and West Elevations,” “South Elevation,” “North Elevations,” “Existing Context,” “Future Context,” “Sheet Showing Northeast, Northwest, Southwest, and Southeast Views,” “Looking North – Existing,” “Looking North – Proposed,” “Looking South – Existing,” “Looking South – Proposed,” “Looking West – Existing,” “Looking West – Proposed,” “Looking East – Existing,” “Looking East – Proposed,” “Façade Details,” and an untitled drawing showing a street-level view of the building at the corner of Bool Street and College Avenue, all dated June 21, 2016 and prepared by STREAM Collaborative; and other application materials, and WHEREAS: the revised drawings listed above show the following changes from plans reviewed and accepted during the Environmental Review: the repositioning of the building on the site to meet the rear yard setback requirement of 10’ while still meeting the Institute of Transportation Engineers standards for sidewalk width in urban environments along College Avenue; the addition of two functional entries along Bool Street to meet CAFD requirements, the addition of a curb-cut and concrete driveway at the rear of the building, the stepping back of the top floor of the building on College Ave, and the incorporation of architectural details and further design development in response to Design Review Committee comments, and WHEREAS: this Board did on June 28, 2016 determine the proposed project changes are consistent with the environmental review and that no amendment to the Negative Declaration is required, and WHEREAS: that the Planning and Development Board did, on June 28 2016 grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval to the project subject to the following conditions: i. Submission to the Planning Board of all site details including, lighting, signage, paving, retaining walls, fencing, bike racks, site furnishings and other site amenities, and ii. Submission of cut-sheet for metal paneling materials demonstrating that the installation provides for reveals between panels, and iii. Screening for rooftop mechanicals will be changed from white to light gray cement panels, and iv. Submission to the Planning Board of a location and plan for remote construction parking, construction staging and deliveries, and v. Hours of noise-producing construction activities will be limited to 7:30 a.m.-6:00 p.m., Monday-Friday, and vi. Any work in the City Right of Way will require a Street Permit, and vii. Before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, there must be a fully executed permanent easement for access, use, and maintenance of public sidewalk on private property, and viii. Applicant to work with City to seek underground (rather than overhead) location for all existing and proposed electric and telecommunications utilities adjacent to the project site, and ix. Applicant to explore potential cooperation with the adjacent property owner to the north, regarding relocation of the owner’s solar panels, and WHEREAS: this Board has on August 23, 2016 review and accept as adequate titled “Staging Plan,” dated 7/5/16, and “Site Details (L103),” dated 8/2/16 and prepared by STREAM Collaborative; and other application materials new, and WHEREAS: in accordance with §176-7 E. of CEQR and §617.7 (e) of SEQRA, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board acting as Lead Agency did, on August 23, 2016 determined that: (1) new information has been discovered; and (2) a change in circumstances related to the project has arisen that was not previously considered, and the Lead Agency has determined that no significant adverse impact will occur, and WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board did, on August 23, 2016 amend the Negative Declaration issued on May 24, 2016 to include the above-mentioned information in the environmental record and WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board finds that conditions “ii.” and “iii.” have been satisfied, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the Planning and Development Board does hereby grant Final Site Plan Approval to the project subject to the following conditions: i. Resolution by the Board of Zoning Appeals as to the issue of façade length requirements in the MU-1 Zoning District as applied to the project, and ii. Submission to the Planning Board of all site details, including, lighting, signage, paving, retaining walls, fencing, bike racks, site furnishings, and other site amenities, and iii. Submission to the Planning Board of a location and plan for remote construction parking, construction staging, and deliveries, and iv. Hours of noise-producing construction activities will be limited to 7:30 a.m.-6:00 p.m., Monday-Friday, and v. Any work in the City Right of Way will require a Street Permit, and vi. Before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, there must be a fully executed permanent easement for access, use, and maintenance of public sidewalk on private property, and vii. Applicant to work with City to seek underground (rather than overhead) location for all existing and proposed electric and telecommunications utilities adjacent to the project site, and viii. Applicant to explore potential cooperation with the adjacent property owner to the north, regarding relocation of the owner’s solar panels. Moved by: Seconded by: In favor: Against: Abstain: Absent: Vacancies: 0