Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MN-CAB-1999
)Ol - 6 00 iYlpb2.tx-k Pi62.S.C- 30-(4 - LIC)U- -L Ca0 4.1(1, C_Ilk,f tt, L... art,rt,-ce,, , k:47/7s nui.:„ if-n-1-4(OcitAc'hOrf2) - 1') rd cf ri: )...5 f. 00--ukekt- Pano5 Goq-16,11150-7-) loe we-( li moc_i, i-itiaii, OD iamb, sito-roi-A, t- ., G ) nc food ecal. _issta - K loll up)coyuci-ior ert 1010 Afadtaiv.lz 4:\lot, h-tizA•14 - -/Turvule_tZ Ca/4- &pirD)i(S , CO(Laal,)',■1 'Cl\ \CS I 10 CA,1-i on ) IA:64e.,e , ,.51-00k, ) appawa 06 tiatiy F?-apie,, 5a 4-cootes 9 i nt CoM-, bag Cti c&r-f.--. a3 Owcts. (1 bar-) , p(I'Q._ ot lood 400 )0EZ J---1VD 0C-6-co vd-cAid * &JD 3kak!.5 kli ../..nc,(_ cyr) --i-kk ez1r\rt1 3 ibl Lapp 14 1,0/ 6iT-ci4ions --14-yÜ had (ftut_r) ...., GI AC j\s.,tvove_:.) (von c\ct-ka,,y_ / Whoa issui.,6) aitu. -1-4-- ,--7. 1-faci --ii,a,v 6 0 ) ■---------- Or)r)PlOtti")' l' r)1(002- ---- ftili Cttetalj pY013)6fr) *ed -k) u1/4z-bk- 0/ MP abou4- yoa-13-) On 4,tut ebri-)1Y)o-0 Po) ief.... CA.)04114- i POI 1 CL +0 OPe-r) Cornwall le-0-4-101-) iliuS propel' .sijn5 .(ZS.-ird / 0 t_ ylost .Loft.(2, qatir ,EiLc, CD(‘- j Al Ald(14- s. -Day s Nio el,c) .51,t s-lietA" CIC°6 Off,tr5‹, 40c0,3IL tclaD-51(3)111,— cals,c Cion.:1- 0 0 QQ% - jaw rumlia-0 - hoto, uj)c) 6r6L154)1' 5:3hAa.4-„ -Del/voii izie) kJ-0) jusitmidc- (9-0wiT) /irZh pia Up 7 (efilDvat e Up WI Lcaort - zexit_s _ 1,„01.41) I & ü /i09(24- hay oe1--ALL/ COmmOn5 DPO /ekai-th:_19 Oe6o3 OcuLL 60Y/015 opeco_e 06 ) -n401 raocirdifs h vz_ed ) Oce-eZ/L 40 kc,4tx-tuf 1,01\6r) I ilyk) O ) Jo L(2,r •.,),L (2i - 1/01-)o /Idttgiu, do LOt oito 7 wO-om hD qv 0,5L cri,c1 - al)C{4- Cor54 J 4- L)„1,PuLt-- I Skid pliadt.05 bt1)10,t/t1 --) 004 `-) - /- - er.)\fiyohivttole*t(_. t //Vd:(( ?ti LJ /1 -3sza-2 D) e LA...)hey) 0 :1711: (CZ( d / d h Ark,0 jj , in\it' 'R- D Kr/ ) C.71 \ ,1 ot. (..i-- 4-44, in vai6 ) 2T-ea n iu..4, t )1P.) 10/tta0 n divoli Padeeti 1,L --' '--- 6ivizita Pejcir ,i-t,t(4 0-16.1-1, ir_) Pattattb- 1-46-'1° ,:r050) toe4,1„,,,60_ 06,110a, .40.-i.t. 1 toivA4 5 itt,G0 c214-fl 0 , 6)-1°1 ---■■ k I Ilar /3 ey(caitz oliceo_ - ii4 k)/C,4 4401(fii2ti cited(- 14° Cor5iskin4 Cippt)ca,1-i on 4:4-1-)fatart,)6(14-- oc oica.ur,-) , ,10 TOD -1%95 1 biclici - need 13/- -ro( ottf 06 -7-btoita c(r _kt,t,a)-(AA)(--) el k'n'Ax.y5 a.3 wcii..c 0 `KCI1/4°-0-"itt 11°\ ,f,d Pero -4 Lb — PorA-rift insizd-ion ofe- curren%Ili 5jmzad i m4-C.1."'ILt.-3 t(e. Lx1.4 ' l'rcuLLeci bti I e-e 01 d 64.5 6 Inc , lir ((l ii Vi— Ubb( I c Verdel CaA-1- --->- 6 i ifs-Et ()of col profi 4- .*Ctiki owa4rei p rtri 1 Klocew MOnai i‘nOeSded bau In-16 a -litp ,x6 09 _caw) Rtut c. 1.4)-e,e5.., Co 1 S-.---uthati.i 4.01.7ap D A ; rbq HaA4ins Po' It° 6/ //Is 4AI Pita,*12' , , ut-)1 cotf citc)fdespvech-Let:cOrtzt,t1 iahs.( t,itv2 ta5tfei) k-tiv-i2 -to mot uzkva" i romn130..), __a____CaA- CCLt__DLO10-j-- (ecrWVIV.0. kw).iniS"CI-14(1 nif (D(II-LL e) .)(' 6551V W6-0 in 448 beoubi a W , it p - Duitdcov D I in,IA(' tleoveirri ' (,(. _( _ /7 JiNitt(j4, -\5-v.) rec ,.,c..--)rovc aftio... ?ige 0-•-,, , alonCi u c(:,(10 /amotted ., • A,ti ( inosnit Cie/125 0-(-1'471CL-- 40 / ..aSta JIG. ,k-7 i.,-.T i,...;, 40:b' 6-ffi i ii jtc-14.t. 6fpnt ., 6---- . -7---,2. if),orylvtea4/, zt,t .-- 0:Li ,:ot-, 4 --, V..1-4i•,.':.) ...w \Aus 1 r, no t), s chAcitd_tdA0-1 ,./ ' 4/ ("V i Con,lv 1.4, i'd.;it,,,_'11-.) b co iewrA II (.) v). C6( 6f-;le k . 1.--...................— - - f___.ja-p_ bz I kit61.-t_ 'Zell %)4rioitil: r -Di of rI3 rt PPrO V C-Y:)2' 1M-C1 -10 :iUValy 04/4- 6iL le-40( eym °P,56-10pai Id 4-410- 6,_ Aj---- 1 )6 \ ,_ ,, i , e Jog esi-atoli e .is 1 , Nctui no-H-ir e,tt,C,4-tuict_e pieflatn — t-‹_. bm4-I1 FiZi.m ?Mr/el/ lisjci 6.1t6\I ..fvo n4- - /5 I(4_, ticita-) ;011,16 a pea, , 001-402 5' h-etc114.0,,T, -„,c (___ 1:, p jetini-i*09 f:5 i'l C6i 1 41 ic 11 s 7 Ry 1 piWOUI aru_as tfolic) 4t 22, 090 ( zg ef ,4711,)-1 le ,(14 -r/otoo lbee's L-ri(c\ par Goolif' 63 1etio-1 rulyiti - ar / #.1,4A-li,i9 le; t'Ateti P11/1_,11 vL1- DOL50 try 41-1— / 1.<.--)613 • • 04 1 1 ----- < 6\2e' I\ \ popcf„kizil ( 14--, ino id - 6 o kvi, 0006, •coi7c) /11, (0 gs),,al- --E366-i',1..(k, (i2-1--tedaittiri4 (ty r04- a11(7.ett.)07/7110-.1 ht,t,n9 0°P1 ( 05 LC! 4)10 5114 5 o_c_, V \%,,b\- itICA.: on Per560Y-C 5)3 hs Co--) uppl 1--JO-iti biLd?wigs' \pV", - t •P-Irl ' Pallger -(61 •-i-kla.ter" 7 Id-0i I5Sttc -44 Indint- in 6E// 865 °3 (I, .ireAtuk i5 'It, Lkik-'' 11u r' aa14'00 c6 pi)cdaalezi Ion ? 6 ' 1 -Il On 01.0)112iS 5b/d61 nOtl- be ConSide,Uzi ... c)001r; '500 -1;'atz/lied -1-0 Con -0 h ()Led 0,0(0(1 c)pitp374_ Ve0 Met-4113 Time/3 ; '0\a6rj'd q &wok/ aptiao movnim --(--fry\Lb:5- uwit'y qa4D PrOr-rn-al moc)-01k2 C.f.toC In Hal J4) Otyye 50-1At Tcd tx)11- 03ved Vcoaas- 01w J-6e. orc i a • 666 es ( I?:1. ardq (Aft( _TDP appoigl-/ci -to 80aed 011bi ,Jp,o,Its 60,W) /}74661'44f-q 30 Corm. lef-5 rantuni. Vlan4-in5 \\ toiq Utogoodin 4-k 1)4) 4nntid . or) -JIC)5e,p1r) (Ak-4110-7,t, apoi 261-h eaacti, Hcuno-- 5:3D1 'nbcagoory) pie;ildo It);) 1)D1,010-1-Own ia_nnefs ; -People_ wed fL 4-o ca a cxin t. b2nro3 40 nk- Di tqbq. bjto. ) cipu_ Lb cass who owos 7 4),,c, 5 cam-ens /Off"RanNtid ontfsi:, • 21 -4,514i2 (.Onti) n NA 5 roz1 46 6e liferacbS Irwthoodett M i Ict. C Guy cic6 irk/1 CO ban tWud bey ii Non) Oo r9 P -f-o Cc"( 1 4)/ iduaS C07 /waft_ QLy) l kct-lin9 g wJ 5?-& ? h(Vrnif Mid - b 1 --- � cpm,r -ns {dal d dcta7-1- n'7 - iott h x(, 54 6-resi *uul-i am,/ ry)OaLl c011&10) IbP 40 C(4/ . fr i3 70 Comm d low 5h rabb 'tau.-P `99 � 1 .d (OiS ypO&eM - r 4 a u yti 4 ) S6w1& 1 ic4 e/tu 4_ 4--uo.- 131 11,E 1 i W5 py-3c6 1)/1/M ZPPLnitylkylizLeitta44 , 6--exemvai( t-L6 foto- I. Ito 1).'n'in Olf\laj . 0\ 0 --'----'-----W-----P ■ iiigh , ojj, _./ I 1,10-- n4r) 1 . , po 3 1a-')1 ° \ „ Akty,:v )1)5 c '?(*9-C „siftecil Ylkj ii xi rptik- III „-- 16°1: '04,qpj --- ,-----`-'---->----7 ------ r / ....... ...../ 3 B l C-�rct c� a .-1- = cb zx- (bask ( lc Crnrno Bi I�a C-5 Plate's l��cv are Cm+rors W pro fez,J R(25,011,(., - -0 p6,100-1-ai TYWnbef" �;�, 4efile) 8:30 ` Coe, /0*W 8 i7 1___:_c_ _-_li__ ardeo.,0 6iI 1 (-21, .6.-:Itric 1,50.7 la a 501,?r (i O I CO t"r t s rr'; :2.j+ ri ` l i, OjuCi L 1N--o O C.1 (00 4-176e3 - comrao�n c-z a 54- sale 51, 4I Q 13 h5 //do b�f!OS °i 4ca‘s , in uc . - ly 10 lot. data 4 .--iirtniejlvis b - vLin tn-I- w,n i - / l Chu 1 -t✓u l 3 r Add -1' 111 i 5 Teo : 1 itr 0 6, ) (iji14.6 aif 6eliou -Than ts(7/vn/co,L) ovioc,!‹,-; 1 more (oi t ,, C�d�pijs�o� Q�tror�Yz K -�s-t-,� 6 14a ll 414 pk- �� aVI Icon it' h1S will C�?c� 110 s add & �, �d 1,014)u- qoo 5 � 9 earl mu U - Cola-ed 1415 on loco 6h1/&L 6,least 1CO ' '\f u.o t e d y - P/ t' aS V� ((pre/e 11 4103 -1 0- approual l ec -r! k dt 40 add a41 s -40, //,.9.N- Fetes . 1 n ,G - Cdd PI, 1 Z,vv(2,Cd /) be Abe. 40 do -10 r oudi) ci - Cf. 11o7 I o .- t (folei 51- !q9 ; e)-1 ; - 1 -� Z ' pyo)FCd • '/ 1 �// oaf h ever -' h -4-o 9! M pr`� t D 1 --� o e.der a) 0w-0-lam c.1OIs Cad - Vand�l.w) - o, caLruja 5 . ) )'‘ D- 1 )° --clq I-5 _a 9 �-}� 6,g/6, kYis Laos i\)046-4-) 1-kg frn /Yert ! Y- was )i9V-, 2)000 - --ktuO,r, 40 odd koxes kyoles torek- OD -- 1;3(45 — 300 5 ) C u 11120 c,, C.pnkeo ti + Ciy-ce_i? � � 1 PolQ6 NW, �r�Slummy lu r AA 6rnaV(01,t;IL-uu aculL-)1.0a0v vid 14 C /0-- f V1,77'1,t f7cry - 171.- 7v14 A 2 1}-e 771:7)1 r 19'tilif' / r - ,vx/tAQII c./, .......„ „ s', ys ,i 55 a 4- ,,,,,f3 z,- - -r-wicv , J,Aij 7 • ,, / " ' \ 'ic-vr-vr i 0 lf )12 p-g-id 1 77 c,.2- c).-1,1 i/vvvvt-0/ . -ct) 2. c r7 ,-,r • 49 1-cl ,,, .-,c - ' ) ) 1 ' Pv'' • S'0717)9 p---, -0 i •L,5 - -)!. .' , . 1 C,4 3--'' ./ _- k if71V i get •■./ u .., ,, i ,c. t7 — "LicJ (it 1--z' 67---" --L: f _ ` 'c..6. s 1-n,,,i ©c " „6,4,,,,,7, —, . vim Ay 6, 764-4,•,,,,,h,,,z, . 1'\-''Cz-ZILLAA-2,, Gte....Q.Z.t-1....4- (.:-lA ,C2C,,e_f___,L7.0_,,,ZeL(2,,--- j(---0 t A,A-6t est �-- 7 U' 4 a_a Ce- l . Pr 4 *,A, /CC' - '&1• I'le' ` Z3( /- ' A.0 *e-e-- _5" Ce-vi/( - ' .i1/- K--- -1--;---7-5 — ae ex- _ aAA,c( // , 4 )ipA) os l'(-avt-) (4_,_--vi K4--6)t-is It.e.e,&( ` cam' 7-Z''_ `, 177 - L . 4,-- d s mss - ". P p &.() — ,z-C, (-7 , „(Jz "n/U) (Mi. L6.0_. --tzv 7, Aja,u,--(' L____72..-tzt 3-4 7/z l-‘,--e- (1 In e Z /&t -e. 4 6 / y -4. v 1 '.' CI vo-f-P . �./ u :. • ;,/_uc'-'i/ ' e5 i''' ,,,,, ii 1; 1/(;, _5,as',-,/,(1/1- ..(il, , cd`''''- .. -{-tik. J,„),_ 0 - i '/ —kV/"Pit +7\1- ' / s i a J- Olvi . t \ Ik- , 1 (. 't) 5-lei 7C4) C : 4/ ' PL A ' 4- 1/L- 4.■(-4,-( 11:„..ejr ‘/172-J it �- `/ G 24/11 ' .l1/ -'1-- s -.(i t) A /1_5 i ,-0,, ' , .6 . 4 0,{.5 L , '.0,„‘. " 7 ( rf\i- ---) lit) /1-alr- - S4'RA--e - , (J' ,/p. :, :iii. .. 5e- �,,, ,v,,j• 617-ke,- LAiw) 5 --e,,P r k-0±' " CO-V\ jef-1-1, 0 `/L't- -? AivvuL _ Lkt\-QPt . ,,,, , , fle'l--- ob-A/v ' 0 pt:ckvia-A/`" . el ' . 1/1-;,./77' , ' _ 7.. wit ; 100 0{ - - i i r 6L- 7 ., -,,A ,r- . ,„,,,,,,a , („,,,,ip, ,v -,0,1v7 6 ' ;AVAI 1-1;11‘-ijr ,ti--7 -I-- n4- ,7). - p ,A, i, r„(Avvt_ ' - ,.., T V ftmol T =.s DESIGN CHANGES FOR THE ITHACA COMMONS -12/2/99 A summary of the design changes recommended in the Report of the Commons Design Review Committee, 4/7/99 and included in the PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE, 9/29/99 The icons below are used to illustrate how the proposed changes will effect The Commons: $ - To enhance the use of The Commons as a retail, residential, office and cultural center. V - To promote The Commons as a distinctive destination for local residents and tourists, and to increase public perception of the Commons as a friendly, safe and clean place. - To increase the amount of flexible space to be used for concerts, soap box discussions, markets, and as a gathering place. - To increase visibility and lines of sight from all points, especially entrances. - Investment in public infrastructure such as lighting, signage, information booths, etc. PRIMARY COMMONS IMPROVEMENTS Three Commons Entrances $ 11 H 4> Design consultant for three entrances $ 16,500 A4 Removal and replacement of existing bollards $ 13,888 Removal and replacement of Time/Temp towers with directory maps/ inf. kiosk $ 145,645 to $ 303,475 West End planter (#1) adjacent to pavilion to be removed includes tree and paving removal and replacement $ 29,188 East End planter (#11) adjacent to pavilion to be removed includes tree and paving removal and replacement $ 33,888 Bank Alley planters (#17 & #18) to be removed includes tree and paving removal and replacement $ 51,206 TOTAL $ 290,315 to $ 448,145 • 2 �, F Four Pavilion Renovations $ v H +. New finish to wood ceilings $ 2,400 Permanent installation of miniature holiday lights $ 2,008 Lighting upgrades $ 1,900 TOTAL $ 6,388 V Improved Primary Commons Lighting $ V► H Lighting Designer $ 7,000 `� Installation of ornamental pedestrian scaled lamps - iim� $ 168,7394' COm Restoration of up-lighting at all existing and new trees $ 134,373 t nD Pavilion lighting upgrades (see Pavilion Renovations above) $ 3,908 * roVU Holiday lighting recommendations $ 13,378 TOTAL $ 327,398 • 3 Planter, Wall and Paving Removals $ H Chess tables removed & relocated, walls removed, _ paving replacement $ 21,700 Fountain removal tree removals, paving replacement, $ 71,486 nine new trees installed (new Fountain not included) Partial removal of center pavilion planter tree removals and paving replacement, four new trees, up-lights and outlets installed $ 41,965 "Brick Circle" upgrade $ 41,500 Other Improvements $ 11 H +J New street furniture -(`, y benches, trash and recycling containers, bike racks, etc. $ 4,800 to $ 7,200 New program of Public Signage, maps & banners $ 11,000 New Fountain $ 200,000 Acquisition of Public Art $ 10,000 to $ 200,000 "Ithaca Underfoot" cb 20 new plaques installed $ 40,000 /2 (b)," 0 u v\v ,,o ;\\ I , l 1(i \� 0 o 0 t=b 4 SECONDARY COMMONS IMPROVEMENTS Home Dairy Alley connection to Green Street $ V H € 4> Design Consultant $ 15,000 to $ 20,000 Pedestrian connector from Green Street through the parking $ 72,890 ramp to The Commons \� Lighting scheme for the Home Dairy Alley $ 9,042 7F- Other improvements to the back alley to City Hall such as new wall treatment, lighting standards, bollards, planters and signage $ 54,950 Appropriate signage and decorative element(s)/gateway entry at street level on Green Street to direct motorists and pedestrians to The Commons $ 15,300 to$ 76,500 Library Enhancements: Pedestrian improvements from South Hill and in the Woolworth Parking Lot $ 42,500 Traffic calming measures at Cayuga and Green $ 72,639 TOTAL $ 282,321 to $ 348,521 Removal of Peripheral Planters $ H 14 total: on the east side of Cayuga St., North Tioga St. and West State St. new trees and paving restoration $ 81,750 Pedestrian Crosswalk Improvements $ V Special paving at 23 crosswalks, white striping $ 49,140 . _ , * T H I R D DRAFT .., MARCH 6 , 1999 • . , - . Renewing the Design Of th e. Ithaca aca • ' I • Report of the commons Design Review Committee, I , , - . . . , . ._. .. . ... ........ ........... . ..... „...._ . _ .. . ....,..„,..,.„ . ...... . .. ,. .. . , 1 ,...._...., - . . - - . .*::- ''" . . -'. -'71.:.°-, .., - .;I: 111'" . '-;';',4, • . I .:,- .-- ....\,-..: <"- ••":.. / :.•k .,...7‘7',., 44.?<,<, ,- -.... .,..4.:,—. '.,..,•:,..».-=----- ' ' 1....\.„„;,....:-.t.:„,-;,......... o,f-,..-,,,,,..- „t„.....•.-'0,.\4..--...,..,,,f,A...47..- . ",,,., ,..„..., ...,..„.;,-,,-,....7.,,,. ' =.......,, I 1 .„.,,...., : .„,...,.....,,.... :•; ,•..„.„....,,,:,...,,„.:,...,..i. . 1.,,,,,,:. _____I-ir .. i ,..: ......,.:. . . ....,,:,,,:,s-,,,,,,,,,,-5- ...,. .-, , -. ;::'.-:,;:::::,--....... '-'7;',..".4.!---•,;.:!, ,‘;:',...-,„ . - .',r.3..i.;',.'.', ,'.:..,q,,. :.'. ,. : thitt.;..&,-, :,..%.. 4-.1.---,..,4 .. .'",:z. ,:.'--,-.'-. .., ._ ..!`.-.X.:::iii;"/W I ,,,,i. :.-4-.-..!..-i,-;..„..,-7. ,•,‘,.. .:'„,:: '' „-',„,," .7*' .., ,. , ,!,''''',•'.‘,-•,..,,,,!.:,? ' ' ' ',::: ,2,1.:i',i.:. ."‘.‘:,t'''..,:.4.7.,:,..,4(4'44.;.... ..".:-.,*';". .2.,At_itykir±...: 0,, V.:, . 0 i.).," *v;;*'',.--s. L"'4,...+4.° -'--..t. ,, ;/*..,• ,. . . "ii:'/W'',"'"9.4',:','Yr,":.'v"'.-. : ;-.,,•,,,;.' ....„-.>,,-„,,',,,'•n• ./7,71T '''''''',.. ' ,t'',"'Pi!4'-!<.'"--'','''''...... ,•" 1,';i,7;">''''i, . • ' '\ - A.. ..... , 'n!i"..Vt.'.'.s-r''''W S4'S:S' -4; '-: '.>:::'t-e?..."-'-'''''''"''' :,..':t It'',. ''./'',',.:\lik.,V‘:,.■■,}',..;:.,,r- . . Ift:L■rAr;(.: ' ', ' . S.,s''s . ' ,. ... .4?-■;•.-4'.'.'':,'..-.1''';A.'lit.,;.' ' .-...;'-'c..51'.;:1';.:"'''-7.' ''''''''',::).:+111:TI ' '"""''..,-',. - ''-''' '' " " '''.'''-c.-:, .....,,t‘.;, .'.,-, ..,. :4 ' ', ,.. 11'.':,:',-,.;,..7., •6.77>C•4.= **''',.,6,.-„, '-:.>'•-°!!:;:.,,, ' Itoir.Avatm&mvm,,Nr ,. — . ,........ . , ....,.. .41.1k,,4,.. '''',1=.-1.4:1.'fA I.'';‘,.,,:',X1•-,4.,--..:;,:',---4-., ..%.--.-, ,,,-1,i,.:..A-?4,,,, . I °:,*':**§'Irs.';:ett'. - '',"4'''''',:.:„ .=•'' . '.‘:4,,'„, . , " . , . . , ,... • ,. ; --,..-------- . .. ,, . , . . ' i, . , Hotne . .. Alley i . ,„..:.,.,J. ...'._._......__. ,.._...",...... ______,.. . ._ ....,... ... . __. .._. __ _ .. ....................,„ __.. ..... A I A A A A • . : .. 0 0 0 1 I • i' Renewin g the Design Of the Ithaca Commons Report of the Commons Design Review Committee Committee Members Joe Daley, chair Bruno Schickel ITracy Farrell John Schroeder Laurel Guy Al Smith ' Allison Hogue Mack Travis Ken Jupiter Scott Whitham Mikel Moss John Yengo Chris Muller G.P. Zurenda Staff and Consultants JoAnn Comish Doug Pessefall ' Tony Egner Thys Van Cort ' Citizens Who Participated Regularly in Committee Discussions Neil Oolie Susan Titus ' Jean Senegas Joseph Wetmore Molly Adams I [ PICTURED AT ITS BIRTH: Shoppers pass by ongoing con- struction activity near the amphitheater pavilion as the Ithaca Commons is created twenty-five years ago. Report of the Commons Design Review Committee I PAGE THREE I SECHON ONE The Committee's Deliberations & Comments Made at Public Meetings. ttached in a rather inconspicuous manner to a concrete pillar just southwest of the Center Pavilion of the Ithaca Commons is a bronze dedicatory plaque proclaiming the following message: THE ITHACA COMMONS DEDICATED TO THE CITIZENS OF ITHACA AS A PUBLIC GATHERING PLACE, A COMMERCIAL CENTER AND A COMMUNITY FOCAL POINT 1975 EDWARD J. CONLEY MAYOR The interplay between these still essential aspects of the Commons — the relative weight these functions should be assigned, how they should be harmonized, how occasionally they need Report of the Commons Design Review Committee I PAGE FIVE I to be reconciled — was at the heart of nearly all deliberations of the Commons Design Review Committee. The original inspiration for the Commons still challenges us today. 1. The Beginning of the Committee's Work. The Committee was appointed by Mayor Alan Cohen to represent a wide range of down- town stakeholders and points of view in November, 1997. He charged it with making recom- mendations concerning the physical design of the Ithaca Commons. This followed requests from the Ithaca Downtown Partnership that no major physical changes to the Commons be made until a coherent conceptual design plan for any such changes was formulated and approved. Most of the Committee's work was done between January and August of 1998. Procedurally, it adopted a very open approach to public participation in its meetings. Guests at individual meetings were welcome to share their thoughts, and those members of the public who regularly attended Committee meetings participated as fully in its discussions as the appointed members. Thanks are due to the many citizens who invested the time to attend one or more meet- 170 a . .. # i ; ;' . 4 x z e s i BUFFALO STREET • • • • .� - �. i 5 g% ' .:." --'-i:: E 4116 I fro F.,,; Frip! : ,.. - . r, :EY El a' 44 ,�, Q ss a a ;. • s sue" A Sn f tle:11, Witii*i Fe a ' a •i 4 - Q, • ` • SENECA STREET • - • ,� 4114''''''' vf v14 ."TWE: ei ki rri "'''''''4 '''1.'=. 11t7 ''''''',02.31 ffitM 6 1, .• °',i '' ms's. d f c I kit g �`'` STATE STREET • ..•• ° • w .H .>'.. .: ru>°'. 1 �'.,. - ash'!': ••. ?,' ?N £ ..^...% PX.o"tab'' i s t; �E` f.. •w••.. j f C bo to s fix} a ',a arm «'a W \ • a...• .1r is] , . I GREEN STREET 1 •• Is o � - "A� RYA -Y - •S8 &? � "+ y DEFINING OUR TERMS: The above map illustrates the respective areas defined as the Primary Ithaca Commons and as the Secondary Ithaca Commons in the City of Ithaca Municipal Code. PAGE Six I Renewing the Design of the Ithaca Commons I ' ing and express their ideas and concerns. 'It was clear from the outset that essentially no one was in favor of leaving the Commons exactly the way it is; nearly everyone wanted to change something, even if the changes envisioned were relatively minor. At an early point, therefore, the Committee agreed to focus its attention on three very different general approaches to redesigning the primary Ithaca Commons: rot ALTERNATIVE ONE: Make major or minor changes within the context of the 1974 Tony Egner design, so that the modified Commons would still be recognizable as the Egner design. IALTERNATIVE Two: Undertake a radical redesign that would retain the Commons as a pedestrian mall (in other words, bulldoze the 1974 design and build an entirely new pedes- trian mall). Pi ALTERNATIVE THREE: Opening all or part of the Commons to full or part time vehic- ular use (includes the concept of a one-way "minimal street" retaining some public space). The Committee also agreed to consider potential improvements to the secondary Ithaca Commons. For those readers who may not be familiar with the terminology, it should be explained that—per the City of Ithaca Municipal Code— the phrase "primary Ithaca Commons" denotes the pedestrian mall itself, while the phrase "secondary Ithaca Commons" refers to specific adja- `./cent streets. The map on the left illustrates the distinctions. Deliberations got underway with a discussion of "what we like" and "what we don't like" about the existing primary and secondary Commons. This was followed by taking each of the above alternatives in succession, and brainstorming about any and all ideas each alternative could embrace. These open-ended speculations included some fanciful suggestions that would not take root. (For example: "Remove the pavilion roofs while retaining the columns?" "Enclose part of the Commons with a glass roof?" "Create a broad `stair cascade' flowing dramatically down from the northeast corner of the Green Street parking ramp next to the Rothschild Building?") But they also generated ideas that would find their way, some months later, into the Committee's final recom- mendations. During this period, Cornell Prof. Chris Muller, the chief proponent of opening the Commons to automobiles, presented a sketch of his preferred scheme, in which a one-way two- lane street passed through the current Commons heading from Cayuga to Aurora Street. Angled parking would exist on the north side of this low-speed street, with occasional bump-outs with trees. The north side of the Commons (the sunny side) would have an extra wide sidewalk that would retain some Commons-like features. A shuttle bus drop-off point would exist in front of the Rothschild Building, and a passenger drop-off would exist at the north end of Bank Alley. In Report of the Commons Design Review Committee I PAGE SEVEN COMMENTS MADE AT JANUARY 22, 1998 his scheme, Bank Alley would remain pedestri- P MEETING TO GATHER PUBLIC COMMENTS an area with a children's play area and a band ON REDESIGN OF THE ITHACA COMMONS shell / reviewing stand. The street, in this g scheme, could be closed off for street fairs. Of the 27 people who spoke, 24 explicitly voiced opposition to the idea of opening the Commons to During this early idea-generating period, I vehicular traffic. No one voiced support for this idea. the Committee also sponsored two information Other comments made related to the Commons gathering sessions. The general public was physical design are summarized below (a number within parenthesis indicates that this comment was invited to speak out on Commons design ques- V stated by more than one person). Lions at City Hall on January 22, 1998, and ■ Commons should not become vehicular street merchants and property owners on and near (24). the Commons were invited to a second meet- 's Commons should be kept basically the same (2). ■ Commons should be special destination. ing held in the Center Ithaca atrium on ■ Commons should be extended. February 11, 1998. The many useful design- ■ Commons must be refurbished (it is shabby). related comments generated during these • Commons is ugly, cold, gloomy, gray, with too meetings are summarized in the box at the left much concrete; make airier, more comfortable. • Playground is positive feature (2). and a second box on Page Thirteen. ■ Pavilions are positive feature (2). The most notable aspect of both meet- 's Sagan Planet Walk is positive feature. ings, however, was the overwhelming opposi- I Sagan Planet Walk is ugly. ■ Plantings are positive feature. tion voiced to the idea of opening the • Provide murals, sculptures, art(4). Commons to vehicular traffic, a notion that one I • Accommodate more events, music (3). speaker denounced as "barbaric." Opposition • Provide better signage (2) (e.g., maps with icons, maps at bus stops). to "ripping up the Commons and putting in a I • Repair fountain (2). street,' as it was typically described, was I Remove or repair fountain (2). expressed in a multitude of ways, with the ■ Provide new fountain (water wall &wading pool). arguments ranging from the practical to the I • Replace concrete with brick(2). ■ Provide more flowers(2). emotional and spiritual. ■ Provide flower boxes on buildings. The more practical-minded argued that ■ Open up center for use by artists, vendors. no rational reason existed for assuming the ■ Improve pedestrian access from side streets. introduction of cars would help the Commons' • Improve visibility from side streets. • Reset uneven bricks in Brick Circle. economic condition. Some merchants express- ■ Provide more bike racks. ed fears about the disruption such a massive ■ Make benches friendlier, cozier. construction project would cause, while others ■ Keep planters, etc. in the middle. • Remove planters, etc. in the middle to create cited their personal success stories operating lighter, less cluttered environment. stores on the pedestrian mall. People who had I Provide more lighting. moved to Ithaca precisely because of special ■ Involve youth with planting and cleanup. 111 Provide ashtrays. local features like the Commons voiced outrage ■ Provide kiosks. at the suggestion of its removal, which was I I Provide bike lanes on Seneca and Green. likened to "ripping out the heart and soul of • Make Seneca and Green Street more physically inviting (not just traffic arteries). THE WAY IT USED TO BE: This historic photo depicts • Emphasize the historic architecture, and institute State Street east of Cayuga Street not long before the program of facade restoration and improvement. construction of the Commons in 1974-75. I PAGE EIGHT I Renewing the Design of the Ithaca Commons `b' ._ s. .:• . ' i fit -,.,.?,.,‘E ,„„,....,. c,.._.,.,:... —,,, .,„.... .. . . . . y' r - * N {j �aitB' r , Y €�. s � I ....,j..,,,...:. w. .......4„;,.,�LgtF a s �-:-wn,.t ° SL „,'7 I t , ":��F � �.�' 111 x g1i rte• �413 g�¢x .' l : : . a ..L 14 a a,, m pica?� .E ,s "; w a �a'N-a.a°'L t 3 „iic., ' 4*.-,-1,,,-7:,-' A . \:. .), , wt $ '` ,a _......n�, r MBosti)riiari -,. L » fRCI 1 f L ? } �” 3 . ; I p S 5 ..�� 3 k � , p .. .,,�.,<s � : . ,mow.: ,, :' a I Report of the Commons Design Review Committee � PAGE NINE Ithaca." The Commons, it was argued, helped foster a precious local sense of community, con- " trasted to car-dominated places where the sense of community has been destroyed. The Commons was compared to culturally-enriching, civilization-enhancing pedestrian centers exist- ing in many world cities throughout history. One speaker declared that if the Commons were removed, he would leave Ithaca and never return. 2. The Road Bites the Dust. Several Committee members had been strongly opposed to the vehicular street alternative from the outset, pointing— for example — to the hundreds of American small cities from coast to coast with distressingly dead downtowns whose main streets had never been closed to traffic, and where pedestrian malls had never been installed. Other Committee members had always expressed serious reservations about the idea. But the strong sentiments of opposition to this alternative expressed at both information gathering sessions finally sealed its fate. At its March 9 meeting, the Committee voted unani- mously to drop the road option, and continue considering only `Alternative One" (changes made within the context of the basic Egner pedestrian mall design) and "Alternative Two" (creation of a completely new, radically redesigned pedestrian mall). 3. Programmatic Goals for Commons Redesign. The Committee next formulated programmatic goals that should be met by any Commons redesign. Specifically, it agreed that any redesign plan should: 5 Enhance the use of the Commons as a retail, residential, office and cultural center. " Promote the Commons as a distinctive destination for local residents and tourists. al Increase the amount of flexible space to be used for concerts, soap box discussions, markets, and as a gathering place. Encourage businesses to expand into outside spaces—for example,with signs, out- door dining, sales racks and vending carts. t1Be sensitive and sympathetic to the historic character of the surrounding buildings. C Increase visibility and lines-of-sight from all points, especially entrances. `::� Include such public infrastructure as restrooms, signs, drinking fountains, informa- tion booths, clocks, phones, lighting and seating. PAGE TEN Renewing the Design of the Ithaca Commons `t1 Provide space for civic art. VICreate a centerpiece or focal point. a4691 Include a water component. Include a play area for children. laInclude plantings of trees, shrubs and flowers. `:'-l►� Be easily accessible from surrounding streets. "1 Increase public perception of the Commons as a friendly, clean and safe place. 2. Focusing on Specifics. Out of a desire to thoroughly explore the implications and possibilities inherent in the two remaining redesign alternatives, the Committee split into two groups for a design exercise con- ducted during two successive meetings. At the first meeting, one group toured the Commons and developed a detailed, explicit list of changes it would recommend making to the Egner design (per Alternative One). Meanwhile, in City Hall, the other group devised a specific radical redesign scheme (per Alternative Two). Then one week later, the same procedure was followed, except that the two groups switched roles. The result was a wealth of ideas: two detailed schemes for modifying the existing Commons, and two detailed schemes for a radical redesign. Of the two group reports which set forth approaches to modifying the Egner design, noth- ing will be said here, because they became the underlying basis for the Commons Design Review Committee's recommendations presented in SECTION Two of this report. One group's radical redesign scheme was as follows. All the existing structures down the middle of the Commons would be removed. About 15 feet of the existing concrete pavement would remain adjacent to the buildings on either side. This area would be embellished with peri- od lighting, plantings and benches, and would be used as outdoor display, sales and dining space. The center of the Commons would be repaved in brick, providing the image of an historic street. The brick central area would serve as the fire lane, and as additional open, flexible space. A large fountain would be installed in front of Center Ithaca as a focal point and to break up the long line of sight from either end of the new Commons. Bank Alley would contain the relocated children's play area and a gathering area/amphitheater. Wrought iron arches with analogue clocks and ther- mometers would mark each main Commons entry. Encouragement would be given to historic building renovations, and to providing buildings with awnings and signage hung perpendicular Report of the Commons Design Review Committee I PAGE ELEVEN - -''''' ' HT !:'\ :j I ' ' ' - ' - - - ' ' , r is ,',:i s ,,,,, ,:.;...„41,.i,-.....--,-------- -, —, ,,I , ' i ° 2 8S. i F' - ' ::::>-'''' -,', ,ti, ,;‘,,,...;,,,,,,, .,, ,,4-,-; ,; --,—._°:, 0 ' f �li 0 p Il 3 1 3 K '' ...,t, ' — �' g aS S $" fi8 g g `t 3 a o C" i ,.,,,, 5. „ , „.„_. , - L'i A BRAT NEW The west end of the Ithaca Commons is seen from the second floor of the Colonial Building shortly after I construction of the pedestrian mall was completed. to the facade. The entire Commons would remain a pedestrian area, and no vehicular traffic would be allowed. The overall goal would be to provide the Commons with a consistent, recog- I nizable and marketable image as a traditional, historic downtown district. The other group's radical redesign scheme began with the conceptual notion of a grid of trees like those in front of Fleet Bank being extended from one end of the Commons to the other. I Conceptually, this would provide a grid three trees wide reaching from Cayuga to Aurora Street. However, at any given point along this length, there would be only two rows of trees next to an I open fire lane. The later would "switch sides" of the Commons at least twice, so that the two rows of gridded trees would sometimes be on the north side, and sometimes on the south. Because of this alternation, however, as one looked from one end of the Commons to the other, one would I receive the impression of a gridded urban forest three trees wide. This arrangement would pro- vide stores on both sides of the Commons with space for display and sale of merchandise and out- door dining. (The open fire lane would not be adjacent to storefronts, as with the existing Commons; that is the reason for having this lane instead occupy one row of the above three-row I conceptual grid. This pulls the fire lane further in towards the middle, though still off center towards the north or south.) Interspersed among the rows of trees would be street lanterns, I PAGE TWELVE I Renewing the Design of the Ithaca Commons benches, raised areas for performances, covered MERCHANT & PROPERTY OWNER areas,`play areas and slightly raised flower beds. COMMENTS ON COMMONS REDESIGN IThe area in front of Center Ithaca would remain (FEBRUARY 11, 1998 MEETING) open, the Brick Circle would be retained, and Of the 21 people who spoke, 15 explicitly supported Bank Alley would contain a water pool and foun- keeping the Commons as a pedestrian mall; only min that could be used as a skating rink in the two people said they wanted to open the Commons winter. to vehicular traffic (the other four speakers did not I address the issue). Other comments made related to Of these two radical redesign scenarios, the Commons physical design are summarized the former (brick pedestrian street with concrete below (a number within parenthesis indicates that Isidewalks) approach was much preferred over this comment was stated by more than one person). the latter (gridded tree) approach by those advo- • Commons should not become vehicular street (15). I cating or leaning toward Alternative Two. In the • Commons should become vehicular street (2). end, however, the Committee endorsed the • Provide better signage on shops (3). Alternative One approach presented in great • Restore two-way traffic on Cayuga and Aurora I detail in SECTION Two of this report Streets (3). • Maintain the one-way streets (3). Why did the Committee not pursue the • Provide murals, sculptures, art(3). I most popular Alternative Two scenario? ■ Accommodate more events, music(3). First, a number of practical concerns • Provide clearer signage differentiating between municipal and private parking lots (2). were raised. There was serious concern about • Provide better street signage (2). Ithe disruption that bulldozing the existing • Replace concrete with bricks (2). Commons and rebuilding it from end to end • Any major reconstruction (especially for street) could seriously disrupt business (2). Iwould cause to downtown businesses. It was • Keep planters, etc., in the middle `./ argued that structures and trees in the center of (important function as wind break). the Commons functioned as needed wind • Keep existing trees and add more breaks, and that opening up the entire central (important function as wind break). • Remove pavilions, change their design, area from Cayuga to Aurora would create an or increase policing of them. I unpleasant wind tunnel. There was also concern • Prune plantings to create more open views. II Improve plantings on Commons. that so much open central space would make • Improve plantings at Tuning Fork. the Commons look barren and empty even ■ Repair fountain. Iwhen a fair number of people were present. • Highlight beauty of buildings. • Add color(Commons is too gray). Second, aesthetic issues were raised, III Allow business signage on Green and Imostly dealing with plantings and trees. Some Seneca Street parking garages. felt the open brick pedestrian street scheme pro- • Improve maintenance (sweeping, snow). vided insufficient space for trees and flowers. ■ Update directories. I ■ Improve aesthetics. Furthermore, essentially all the existing tall trees II Provide public toilets. would have to be cut down, and it would take • Sagan Planet Walk is ugly. Iyears for newly planted trees to reach maturity. Written comments were received by seven people Finally, deeper underlying reasons were who could not attend this meeting. Of these, five advanced for not proceeding with a radical, expressed clear opposition to opening the Commons I to cars. Concerns about signage (2) and lighting (2) clean-slate redesign. It was argued that were repeated, as was support for two-way traffic on Americans tend to keep trying to solve problems Cayuga and Aurora Streets (2). I ''' Report of the Commons Design Review Committee ( PAGE THIRTEEN I by wiping out the past and starting anew, and that bulldozing the entire existing Commons — an important part of the City's genuine history that many people love — to create an ersatz "histor- ical" brick street was a contradiction in terms. If the goal is to cherish downtown's history, then the 1974 Commons design is one layer of Ithaca's history that shouldn't be completely obliter- ated, any more than the evidences of other important downtown eras should be completely wiped out. This was not an argument that the 1974 design shouldn't be changed, or even changed in major ways, but rather that the "big fix" clean-slate approach to solving American urban problems has frequently failed, and that solutions evolving and growing out of already-existing layers of his- tory — which, in the case of the primary Commons area, includes the 1974 Egner Commons design and will include other layers in the future — might have a greater likelihood of success. 5. Meeting the Goals. The Committee's final recommendations for modifying the primary Commons, presented in great detail in the next section, respond to all of the Committee's "Programmatic Goals for Commons Redesign." However, a number of goals were particularly stressed: INCREASE FLEXIBLE SPACE, AND ENCOURAGE BUSINESSES TO EXPAND INTO OUTSIDE SPACES: The Committee believes some existing concrete planters and other heavy masonry struc- tures in the middle of the Commons unnecessarily interfere with its use for popular outdoor activ- ities and events (sidewalk sales, street vendors, craft fairs, public gatherings, Ithaca Festival, etc.). In these specific locations, efficient use of ground space is difficult, and logical pedestrian move- ments are blocked. In the proposed redesign, major new flexible-space areas have been created throughout the Commons — at the west end in the vicinity of the pavilion, in the area currently occupied by the chess tables, in the center of the amphitheater complex, in the area where the old fountain and stepped platform will be removed, at the east end in the vicinity of the pavilion, and at the north end of Bank Alley. All these new flexible-use areas could be used for outdoor din- ing, outdoor retailing events and vending carts — as well as for civic celebrations, events spon- sored by community organizations and promotions organized by the Ithaca Downtown Partner- ship. In the specific instance of the pavilions, increasing flexible space around them will enhance the ability of crowds to gather around and enjoy concerts or other performances. Retailers (as well as restaurants) could provide movable chairs within the new multi-use areas, increasing the attrac- tiveness, flexibility and quantity of overall Commons seating. More outdoor sales activities, more musicians and performers and more movable seating could create a vibrant urban ambiance sim- ilar to the pedestrian streets and plazas that enliven retailing and community centers at the heart of many European cities. BE SENSITIVE TO HISTORIC CHARACTER: One major objective of the proposal to com- pletely redesign the Commons' principal entrances is to increase the harmony between them and the predominantly nineteenth-century architecture of Commons buildings. (The stark, abstract design of the existing clock towers is regarded as especially unsympathetic with the older build- PAGE FOURTEEN I Renewing the Design of the Ithaca Commons • ings.) Other initiatives furthering this goal include: (1) replacing substantial portions of existing 'gray concrete pavement with warm-hued pavers; (2) softening the Commons' ambiance with more tall trees; (3) using lighting as an aesthetic resource, including illumination that accents attractive architectural features of historic Commons building facades. INCREASE VISIBILITY AND LINES-OF-SIGHT, ESPECIALLY AT ENTRANCES: The recom- mendations to eliminate the existing bollards and clock towers as part of entry redesign, and to remove a total of four planters near the three Commons entrances, will greatly increase visibility into the Commons at each entry point and from adjacent streets. (The intention is both to improve the perception of safety and to encourage movement onto the Commons by providing deeper, more open visual axes at the entries.) At the same time, lines-of-sight throughout the Commons will be improved by pruning the lower branches of trees and replacing overgrown shrubs (especially the yews). Removal of the old fountain and stepped platform, and its replace- ment by a grove of tall trees and a new, smaller fountain, will also substantially aid cross- Commons visibility in this important central area. PROVIDE SPACE FOR CIVIC ART & CREATE CENTERPIECE OR FOCAL POINT The redesign recommendations include several specific opportunities for new art on the Commons: (1) A new, smaller centerpiece fountain is proposed, whose design should be created locally, per- haps through a community design competition; (2) Sculptures are suggested in planters at the east and west ends of the Commons to culminate new visual axes and entice people onto the Commons from side streets.; (3) Possible sculpture locations are also identified at the north end `./ of Bank Alley; (4) It is suggested that new artistic panels or mosaics designed by local artists be set into the surface of repaved areas of the Commons. INCLUDE PLANTINGS OF TREES, SHRUBS AND FLOWERS: The design recommendations call for a net increase of 21 tall canopy trees, which should make the Commons look softer and greener than ever before. (Specifically, 27 new tall canopy trees would be planted, and six exist- ing tall trees would be removed). Although five of the Commons' current seventeen planters would be removed (and two others reduced in size), it should be recognized that, in certain loca- tions, the current planters add more to the impression of hard, gray concrete than they do to the impression of soft greenery. INCREASE PERCEPTION AS FRIENDLY, CLEAN AND SAFE PLACE: The proposed plans emphasize increasing illumination during evening hours from one end of the Commons to the other. This is accomplished in several different ways: (1) Installing bulbs in all the principal Commons light posts that emit a whiter, more natural light than the current yellowish illumina- tion; (2) Replacing or installing uplights at the base of trees throughout the Commons, such that the branches and foliage of up to forty-one trees would be illuminated at night; in addition to the beauty these lamps would create, they would substantially augment both actual and perceived illumination; (3) Adding permanent small white bulbs around the roof perimeters and along the Report of the Commons Design Review Committee I PAGE FIFTEEN wooden beams of all four Commons avilions, both to create a delightful aesthetic effect and to P g brighten their environments; (4) Adding accent lighting within the canopies of trees and on the facades of Commons buildings, both for visual effect and to enhance illumination; and (5) Improving lighting all along and at the entrances to the Home Dairy Alley, as well as along a pro- posed extension of the Alley through to Green Street. (Regarding the perception of safety, see also the aforementioned discussion of improved visibility and lines of sight.)Also important to increas- ing the Commons' image as a friendly, clean and safe place are the many recommendations regarding improved cleanliness, maintenance and plantings presented in SECTION FOUR. PAGE SIXTEEN I Renewing the Physical Design of the Ithaca Commons SECTION Two Recommended Conceptual Desi gn for Modifying Primary Ithaca Commons. he intent of this section is to present a well-considered and coherent conceptual design for modifying the existing primary Ithaca Commons. These ideas and drawings are not meant to represent a final design, but rather the foundation upon which a professional ' architect can produce final design plans. It should be stressed that some of the shapes drawn on the "Proposed Modifications" drawings in Figures A through D (for example, the new fountain and the ramp leading to the Center Pavilion) are intentionally schematic. One other word regarding these proposed changes. No one on the Commons Design Review Committee believes that these recommended design modifications (or any set of proposed design modifications pursued in isolation) will alone produce the thriving, prosperous, beautiful, diverse City center all of us want. Downtown revitalization is a complex process requiring hard work and planning on many interrelated fronts. The fact that this report does not deal with the many other issues crucial to overall downtown revitalization is not because Committee members are unaware of their importance, but rather because such issues are outside the very specific charge this Committee was created to address. 1. Principal East, West and North Entrances to Commons. Problems with the existing entrances identified by the Committee include (1) The existing clock towers with their directories block visibility into the Primary Commons; (2) The stark, Report of the Commons Design Review Committee I PAGE SEVENTEEN abstract design of the existing clock towers fails to complement the Commons' predominant nineteenth century architecture; and (3) The thick, heavy concrete bollards seem unfriendly and unwelcoming. In response to these issues, the Committee recommends that the current clock towers and bollards be removed, and that a new coordinated design for the entrances to the Commons be created by a professional designer. The new design might include analogue clocks mounted on posts and new directories located off to the sides of the Commons entrances, as well as thinner, more attractive bollards. (The Committee feels some kind of new bollards are necessary for safe- ty reasons at the Commons' east end, due to traffic descending East Hill, but no bollards at all are required at the other two ends.) Redesign of the Commons entrances provides the opportu- nity to replace gray concrete here with richer, more inviting pavement (e.g.,warm-hued, patterned brick or panels designed by local artists). Inclusion of flower displays at the Commons' entries should also be considered in the new design. One committee member suggested that the new analogue clocks could be modeled after the historic Ithaca Calendar Clock, displaying the temperature as well as the time. 2. The Four Commons Pavilions. After substantial discussion about the merits of removing some or all of the Commons' pavilions, or redesigning them, the Committee in the end recommends that the existing pavilions remain as places for performances and for pedestrians to escape rain showers. However—due to the application of a dark wood stain at some point — the underside of the pavilions' roofs is much darker now than originally. These underside surfaces should be substantially lightened, either by sanding away the dark stain and replacing it with a clear or light stain, or by painting the underside surfaces white. This would render the areas under the pavilions substantially brighter and more welcoming during both daytime and nighttime. Furthermore, festive miniature white lights should be permanently installed along the rooflines and the horizontal wooden beams of all four pavilions, both for dramatic aesthetic effect and to increase illumination levels. The holiday lights installed along the pavilions' rooflines dur- ing the 1998 holiday season provided a hint of how beautiful this lighting could be, and how much brighter and more cheerful it would make the pavilions look. It might also be possible to modify the light fixtures within the pavilions to provide more internal illumination. Finally, the Committee recommends that all four pavilions be equipped with speakers that could play background music at appropriate times; this would require the installation of trans- mitters in nearby buildings. See recommendations in following sections concerning the planters that now adjoin all four pavilions. 3. Improving Commons Lighting. The Committee suggests several approaches to enhancing lighting on the Commons. The PAGE EIGHTEEN Renewing the Design of the Ithaca Commons • goal is to improve the perception that the Commons is a safe and friendly environment, and simuLneously to use lighting to increase the beauty of the area during evening hours. First, the Committee recommends improving the quantity and quality of light emitted by the existing tall light poles by installing bulbs providing a substantially whiter light than the yel- lowish light given off by the current high-pressure sodium lamps. The Committee discussed the possibility of adding new ornamental pedestrian-scaled lanterns to the Commons as well, but in the end gave up this idea because it would require the extensive installation of new conduit from one end of the Commons to the other. Second, the Committee recommends that the uplights that shone at the base of some fifteen trees when the Commons first opened be restored, and that uplights also be installed at the base of the many new trees proposed in this report. This would lend a magical and festive atmosphere to Ithaca,s downtown during twilight and evening hours, as well as increasing both actual and perceived illumination levels. The nine trees in front of Fleet Bank, for example, were all originally equipped with uplights, all of which have since been removed or disconnected. Many remember the delightful effect this lighting created until the City abandoned it. Presumably the underground conduit lines that fed electricity to these and other trees are still in place underground, which would make installation of replacement fixtures relatively inexpensive. The new gridded tree plantings pro- posed in Items 4, 7, 8, 11 and 12 below would also be equipped with uplights. All in all, this could result in as many as 41 total illuminated trees, creating a truly dramatic effect. Restoration and expansion of uplights would also provide the opportunity to provide new electric outlets at the bases of trees to accommodate improved and expanded holiday lighting. Third, accent lighting should be added within the canopy of certain larger Commons trees, and building owners should be encouraged to enliven their building facades (and increase over- I all nighttime illumination at the same time) by installing accent lighting that calls attention to the beautiful elements of historic facades (cornices, as one example). (See above for the ornamental/functional roofline lighting suggested for all four pavilions, and see the "Pedestrian Route: Home Dairy Alley to New Library" item in SECTION THREE for pro- posed lighting improvements in and beyond the Alley. It should also be noted that a capital pro- ! ject for dramatically improving lighting in the downtown parking garages has already been approved by the City) 4. Planter Adjacent to Westernmost Commons Pavilion. Currently this area is filled by a small roughly triangular planter containing a concrete elec- trical box and one substantial evergreen. This evergreen, though attractive in itself, is so sited as to substantially block views into the Commons from Cayuga Street; indeed, this whole planter blocks inward views and pedestrian movements that would otherwise pass under the pavilion and into the Commons. The existing smaller plantings in this planter seem to fare poorly, perhaps due to shadows from the nearby pavilion roof. These plantings, furthermore, obscure natural light that would otherwise add a brighter, more cheerful quality to the area under the pavilion roof. Report of the Commons Design Review Committee f PAGE NINE1LEN FIGURE A: WEST END OF PRIMARY COMMONS E X I S T I N G CON D I T I O N S . . . <, i $- vX� i a 1Dir# 1 k ►■wi8 271 .. '''..4**N.k f) Ck li,ii..-4,.--,, 4-;:-.4".',4.:ti„..,y ----‘-',-,;,'$-!-- 1, \ , , .mil - , r,„.„,e, , .4. rieolos,10 ,I§ lat.,"-->to..*IIM , -0411 .. • ..3�.. � '' ''' > ter...;.:. ii F•i ` r 'k a."i rx Zi al/ A A A A A 0 0 O O 0 1- BOLLARDS: The thick, heavy concrete bollards present an unfriendly appearance;they seem to say"keep out" rather than "welcome in." 2. TIME/TEMPERATURE TOWER: Its location blocks views into the Commons, while its starkly modern design is unsympathetic with the Commons' largely nineteenth century architecture. 3. MISSING UPLIGHTS: According to the original Commons design plans,these four trees were equipped with uplights at their base illuminating their foliage at night This light increase over- all Commons illumination while simultaneously providing a pleasing evening aesthetic effect. Presumably the electrical conduits leading to these trees are still in place. 4. WEST PAVILION: The area under this pavilion is currently rather dark and gloomy, partly because of the dark stain (added subsequent to the Commons construction) on its wood ceil- ing, and partly due to light blockage created by the planter and plantings directly adjoining it on its east 5. PLANTER: This planter's location makes the West Pavilion a "dead end" both visually and physically. It blocks the visual axis from the west that would otherwise pass through the four trees and under the pavilion roof onto the Commons, and it also prevents pedestrians from using this same axis as a welcoming"processional route"onto the Commons.The large conifer here, while attractive in its own right, substantially contributes to view blockage. PAGE TWENTY I Renewing the Design of the Ithaca Commons - ,.,.r-.,:......._,.,,,.,., , . . . AND PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS V ■ w g gg / , Z ` t 7 Ili r∎etr•'a * rowel `� . 1 ►,.•®.,a '` v` ►- .=-4 .a14 1. t s►40 : a ` - ►IIopa 3 a a r -Y' . ,t A A A 0 0 0 0 0 1. NEW ENTRY TREATMENT: The current bollards and clock towers at all three Commons entrances are removed, and a new coordinated design for the Commons' entrances is creat- ed and installed.The revised design might include analogue clocks mounted on posts and new directory maps located off to the sides of the Commons' entrances. Warmer-hued new pave- ment with panels designed by local artists could highlight these important public entry points. 2. RESTORED UPLIGHTS: The uplights that apparently originally existed at the bases of these trees are restored, both to increase overall illumination and for their beauty. 3. WEST PAVILION: The atmosphere under this pavilion is made brighter and more cheerful by (1) lightening the color of its wood ceiling; (2) adding permanent festive miniature lights on its wood beams and roofline;and (3) removing the planter now crowded along its east edge. 4. NEW CANOPY TREES: The old planter here is removed and replaced by new tall trees rising from pavement grills and illuminated by uplights, like the gridded trees to the pavilion's west. Both views and pedestrians from the west will now pass through and beyond the pavilion. Removal of the planter here also provides a substantial new area of flexible-use space. 5. PLANTER RETAINED: This planter would be retained, and could be augmented by a sculpture designed by a local artist at the position marked by the ! ; symbol.A new bicycle rack is pos- sible at several points along this planter's diagonal walls. Report of the Commons Design Review Committee I PAGE TWENTY—ONE 1 FIGURE B: TABLE & AMPHITHEATER PAVILION AREAS E X I S T I N G CON D I T I O N S . . . I .,4: # - .1,-41, , (gen 4/ • a II A t wy I :< v A A 4 A 0 0 0 0 I 1. CHESS TABLE AREA: While the tables here are frequently used, the walls surrounding them i do little besides impeding lateral movement across the Commons. If the tables could be used elsewhere on the Commons,this could be a prime area for gaining flexible-use space.The tall canopy tree here — one of the biggest on the Commons— should certainly be preserved. 2. PLANTER/PAVILION/AMPHITHEATER COMPLEX: The Committee regards this as a generally successful and attractive area of the existing Commons that should be retained... 3. NORTH AND SOUTH PLANTER "WINGS"AND THE PAVILION: ...However, at the point indi- cated here two thin "wings" extending out of a planter impede access into the amphitheater pavilion.The northern planter wing completely"walls off"the north pavilion edge from pedes- trian access, while the southern wing partially blocks movement into the pavilion from the south. By hindering both light and movement,these wings make the area within the pavilion seem dark,isolated and unattractive.The dark woodstain on the pavilion ceiling intensifies this gloomy atmosphere. The wings also constrict performers who use the pavilion, and make it difficult for spectators to see performances from the north or south pavilion sidelines. 4. JUST OFF THE MAP TO THE EAST: The upper wall defining the east edge of the top amphithe- ater tier unnecessarily interferes with lateral views across the Commons. Furthermore,the flag- pole's concrete base was constructed very poorly, resulting in the pole's current odd tilt. PAGE TWENTY Two I Renewing the Design of the Ithaca Commons ., A N D P R O P O S E D M O D I F I C A T I O N S x .M e r t 4 f>i ►•� � rx' @ ' gyp". - _&0', x A O 1. NEW FLEXIBLE-USE SPACE: The chess tables are relocated elsewhere on the Commons(see Figure D) and the former low walls here are removed,creating a major new flexible-use space. The large locust tree is preserved, with the restoration of the uptight at its base that formerly illuminated its foliage. 2. PLANTER "WINGS"SHORTENED: The north and south planter wings formerly impeding vis- ibility and pedestrian accessibility into the amphitheater pavilion are cut back to the point where the western two pavilion columns rise.The pavilion is easier for performers to use, and easier for spectators to see into when performances occur. At other times, the pavilion is a gateway for lateral pedestrian movement between the two side of the Commons. 3. AMPHITHEATER PAVILION: Like the other pavilions, its ceiling is lightened either by sanding away the current dark wood stain or by painting its ceiling white.Shortening the planter wings allows more natural light to enter, and decreases the pavilion's isolation, making it seem a more cheerful and welcoming place. Its roofline and beams are permanently enlivened with miniature lights,for festive effect and to improve illumination during evening hours. 4. JUST OFF THE MAP TO THE EAST: The upper concrete wall along the east edge of the upper tier of the amphitheater is lowered,to improve visibility across the Commons.The flagpole is reset in a new concrete base, eliminating the pole's slant. Report of the Commons Design Review Committee ( PAGE TWENTY-THREE For all these reasons, the Committee recommends that this planter be removed and replaced with two new tall trees that would continue the grid pattern already established by the four existing trees at the Commons'west end (see the two Figure A drawings). The new canopy trees \./ would rise from tree grills and uplights would shine on their foliage after dusk. The original uplights that shone on the four existing trees would also be restored, improving aesthetics and increasing overall Commons illumination. With this modification (in conjunction with the removal of the clock tower and bollards as recommended above), a fresh welcoming appearance would be created at the Commons' west end. The trunks of the four existing gridded trees here, plus the four posts supporting the pavil- ion, and then the two new trees would form north and south rows of vertical elements, creating the sense of a promenade leading into the Commons from the west. Instead of confronting the visual dead-end existing now, one could see under the pavilion and tree canopies into the Commons. When performances were scheduled under the pavilion roof, people could gather on all four sides; at other times the pavilion (without the blocking planter) would function as a gate- way element leading people into the Commons. In addition to improving sightlines and pedestrian access into the Commons from the west, this modification would meet the Committee's goal of providing additional flexible space for Commons celebrations, special events, sidewalk sale days, etc. Important details that will have to be addressed during detailed redesign of this area are alternate accommodation of the electric box and provision of a new bicycle rack to replace the one now incorporated in the planter. The advice of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Council should be sought when considering the latter. `-1 . 5. Current Chess Table Area. This area now consists of low concrete perimeter walls enclosing three concrete chess tables and stools and one mature locust tree (see the two Figure B drawings). The Committee feels this is a prime location for increasing Commons flexible space. To accomplish this the low walls should be removed and the chess tables moved elsewhere on the Commons. The large locust is an attractive feature of this area providing welcome greenery and shade, and should be retained. (This tree was apparently originally provided with an uplight at its base, and this should be restored.) The redesigned area west of the Center Pavilion (see the two Figure D drawings) could be an ideal location for the relocated chess tables and stools, as they would be closer to the music per- formances that occur regularly in the Center Pavilion and to the area where the Ithaca Downtown Partnership has been providing outdoor tables and chairs during the warm weather months. 6. Amphitheater Complex (Planters, Pavilion, Tiered Seating). The Committee regards the amphitheater complex as a successful element of the Commons that should be retained — with the following relatively minor modifications: PAGE TWENTY-FOUR I Renewing the Design of the Ithaca Commons • • (1) Pedestrian access to the pavilion here is currently blocked fully or partially on three sides;contributing to the feeling that the area under its roof is a dark, secluded, empty place. To the pavilion's west is a major planter; to its north is an extension of this planter; and to its south `./ is yet another (though shorter) planter extension. It is recommended the latter two planter exten- sions be removed, allowing pedestrians to move freely from one side of the Commons to the other (see the two Figure B drawings). This change would reduce the pavilion's isolation from the life of the Commons, open it up for more uses, and provide additional perspectives from which perfor- mances under the pavilion roof could be viewed. When no performances were scheduled, the pavilion roof would now serve as a "gateway" for lateral pedestrian movement —instead of cov- ering a gloomy dead space. (2) The upper concrete wall defining the east edge of the top amphitheater tier should be lowered in height, to improve visibility from one side of the Commons to the other. (3) The current "leaning flag pole of the Commons" should be reset upright in a new base. 7. Commons Fountain and Its Surrounding Stepped Platform. The Committee recommends that the entire granite water fountain and its surrounding stepped platform be removed, and replaced with (1) a nine-square grid of trees with the same interspacing as the popular nine-square tree grid in front of Fleet Bank, and (2) a newly designed water fountain (see the two Figure C drawings). The original water fountain was intended to be a Commons focal point that would remind onlookers of Ithaca's gorges. Water flowed down from three upper basins in the three highest pink granite blocks to a pool below, creating the sight and sound of a waterfall; at night underwater lamps illuminated the pool and the falling water, providing a light and airy atmosphere. [ However, year upon year of deferred (or deliberately avoided) maintenance resulted in seri- ous leaks and pump problems, the repair of which would apparently have required disassembly and then reassembly of much of the existing structure. The disrepair became so advanced that the former collecting pool was filled in with soil and turned into a temporary planter in 1997. Given the former fountains' non-functional condition and the chipped and worn appearance of the sur- rounding stepped platform, it seems wisest to raze this whole structure (saving the granite blocks for future reuse) and redesign the area. This provides an opportunity to both improve the area aesthetically and provide an extensive new flexible-use space at the very heart of the Commons. The proposed new nine-square grid of tall trees would stand in the western part of the area once occupied by the old fountain; the trees would rise from tree grills and be equipped with uplights to illuminate their foliage in the evening. The suggested new water fountain would be just east of this new grove. The fountain itself could be located directly on axis with the Home Dairy Alley, providing an attractive feature for pedestrians approaching the Commons from that direction. The fountain's basin might extend somewhat further east. The Committee expresses no opinion as to a specific fountain design; however, one pos- sibility would be to generate it through a community design competition (with substantial money ll backing it up, adequate both to fairly compensate the winning designer and to fund design devel- Report of the Commons Design Review Committee I PAGE TWENTY-FIVE FIGURE C: FOUNTAIN AND ADJACENT AREA I E XIS T I N G C O N D T I O N S . . . I ,:u;:. e.. of I i e ¢. m d ""� "�' �. y '' 4r, t",'"s4,* . -.. ,‘" J r I Home Dairy _... _�._ .__ a _ .., _.„_, ..,_ . Alleyw.._ A A A A 1 . HOME DAIRY ALLEY: The Home Dairy Alley does not continue in a straight line under the parking garage to Green Street. Furthermore, such a logical extension of the alley does not continue across Green Street by means of an appropriately located midblock pedestrian cross- walk with traffic signal, thereby providing direct pedestrian access between the center of the Commons and the future site of the Tompkins County Public Library. 2. COMMONS GRANITE-BLOCK FOUNTAIN: The former fountain was turned into a temporary planter in 1997 because of a host of problems: (1)the internal pump mechanism was failing; (2)the water basins below the stone blocks—and perhaps internal pipes as well—were leak- ing substantial amounts of water onto the surrounding Commons; and (3) the granite blocks were out of the alignment necessary to create the intended cascading water effects. 3. RAISED STEPPED PLATFORM SURROUNDING THE FOUNTAIN: This whole construction shows considerable wear — especially the many steps, which have been seriously battered and chipped by snow-removal equipment over the years. Furthermore,the raised platform's large size and intricate"topography"(many steps,walls and angles)create a major interference with flexible-use activities (community celebrations, special events, sidewalk sales,etc.) at the very heart of the Commons. 4. RAMP AND PLANTERS WEST OF CENTER PAVILION: This area is addressed in Figure D. PAGE TWENTY SIx I Renewing the Design of the Ithaca Commons f " . . . AND PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS irk —11.87! s rowi! This Is Only a i®e��! r g ; Ji Graphic Symbol of fri4T 471 s� i 41 u dSL� •i►��� . �� &Bashes General 12.07 Location;It is Not� �� a Proposed Design! -�, `\ sk itorpts VIP's" 07/P9 , P1117,51 PVit■91 t;;;;‘,` rolit0/ ;� I��aa/ I•tiaA�1 � � r x � I Home Dairy Ailey A A A A O 1. NEW NINE-SQUARE GRID OF CANOPY TREES: The malfunctioning fountain and its raised stepped platform are removed and replaced by nine new tall trees, arranged like the popular nine-square tree grove in front of Fleet Bank.Uplights are installed beneath each new tree,cre- ating a festive, beautiful environment during evening hours, and increasing overall Commons illumination.The whole area formerly occupied by the fountain platform is now a major new flexible-use space.(Note:The Fleet Bank grove trees were all originally equipped with uplights, and many remember how delightful these lights were before the City abandoned them. All such original uplights should be restored;their electric conduits must still exist underground.) 2. HOME DAIRY ALLEY: A new attractively-designed southern extension (off this map) extends the Home Dairy Alley in a straight line to Green Street, where a new midblock pedestrian crosswalk with traffic signal provides direct access to the Tompkins County Public Library. 3. NEW FOUNTAIN: A new fountain, visible from the Home Dairy Alley, is installed in the gen- eral area where a graphic symbol (whose shape should not be interpreted as a literal design) appears above.One approach to determining the design of the new fountain would be to hold a community design competition, backed up with sufficient funds to compensate the design- er and pay for detailed design and construction. 4. MODIFICATIONS WEST OF CENTER PAVILION: Again,this area is discussed in Figure D. Report of the Commons Design Review Committee I PAGE TWENTY-SEVEN • FIGURE D: CENTER PAVILION AND SURROUNDINGS E X I S T I N G CON D I T I O N S . . . 1 r.‘,,i:-....,:.:'.:'", " . .,.., . .:747':1:1,;7. ...7750:'';.„-,::::..,,,,.,...._,. , ..,,,,,,i! ' e,,. .„,„,,,,,,,,„..„...„:„:„,,,,„„,.„.::, .,.., .,,., ,. .. ... .._.. ,,,.,,,,,.,„,„,, , ,. .,.,..,:::::::„.„,.% . ,, 4., y Y"'ttttp 1!� k Z v t g Y'-‘,. ,,,,, .-., ,,„: :-...:,,,,,,,,,:„..ow.,..,,,r, ,; ,, ,...-,....,-.: --. ..,..,,,..;,,:,,,,,.4, a . ,„„,,,,, 1 a I A A A (1)1 O O O 1. FOUNTAIN COMPLEX: This area is addressed in detail in Figure C. 2. RAMP AND PLANTERS WEST OF CENTER PAVILION: Several problems exist here.The brick ramp, while providing essential wheelchair accessibility, is in poor repair. Bricks have come loose and then been repaired in a visibly crude manner. Flowers and shrubs in the two planters tend to fare poorly, especially nearest the Center Pavilion, where the pavilion roof blocks sunlight and the soil and plantings are frequently trampled.The portions of the planters nearest the pavilion are typically strewn with litter. 3. CENTER PAVILION: The Center Pavilion is an essential element of Ithaca's community life,pro- viding a raised platform appropriate for political speakers, protest rallies, musical concerts and public ceremonies. It should certainly be preserved. However, its steps are badly in need of cleaning and repair, and — like the other pavilions — its ceiling has been stained dark brown, decreasing its internal brightness. 4. BRICK CIRCLE: The Brick Circle is an attractive sculpture which should be retained. However, mistakes made during its initial installation must be corrected.The principal concern is the cur- rent unevenness of the bricks,which have settled unevenly due to improper preparation of the underlying gravel and sand. The bricks need to be reinstalled after proper subsurface prepa- ration. Section Two explains a further concern about the muddy color of the perimeter bricks. PAGE TWENTY-EIGHT I Renewing the Design of the Ithaca Commons i , . . . A N D P R O P O S E D M O D I F I C A T I O N S ■./ Below Is a Graphic Symbol of a New Ramp; It Is Not a Final Design! a' 7 i . .‘.,,),...:;;::.4, 0.7 i..-,--..:;;:::i!,.Yi:::;!irl •', 1.1 11:111111111:111 11111,1111111 1 I 1 H To„,,....,::,.„,.:„„,.,.„,,:„.:,..„,,,„,„„,,,,,,„5,,,0„:.„.,„..:,:„,,,,,,,, „,:„„„:„„„:„„„„„,„„:„„i„,.,„„:„„:„,,,..,,,„„„,i,„, ..„,,,.„,,,,,,,„„,,,,,,,,,,,„„:„."...„,,„:„.„,,,.,,,„::,:::::::,,„„ii„,„„„„:„.;:::. ,,,„,„,„„„„„„„„„„„„,.,„:,„„„:„„„„:„„„,..„„„„„:„,,,, !. ol►i s.�a a ',044 �. 4 5 .. ` a m..> F 1.01 i • O. O O O F 1. MODIFICATIONS TO FOUNTAIN COMPLEX: Proposed changes here are discussed in Figure C. i 2. RAMP ARM WEST OF CENTER PAVILION: The existing ramp and most of the old planters i are removed.A new ramp is installed extending less far to the west. Four tall canopy trees sur- round the ramp, three rising from new surface-level tree grills with uplights, and one from within a planter corner retained to the northeast.The three chess tables removed elsewhere on the Commons (as explained in Figure B) are reinstalled amid the new trees. New flexible- use space flows continuously into similar space created where the old stepped fountain com- plex used to stand. (Note:The above ramp drawing should be regarded as schematic only,not as a final proposed design.) I3. CENTER PAVILION: The pavilion is preserved,and its surrounding steps cleaned and repaired. The dark ceiling stain is either sanded away or covered by white paint, brightening the pavil- ion's interior.As with the other pavilions,permanent festive miniature lights are installed along the perimeter of its roof and along its wooden beams. 4. BRICK CIRCLE: The original design intent is realized by resetting the old State Street bricks I after proper subsurface preparation, so they will present an even upper surface. New bright yellow and dark chocolate brown perimeter bricks are set to resemble compass tick marks, relating to the existing perimeter granite place names,according to the original design intent. I ../ Report of the Commons Design Review Committee I PAGE TwEN1Y-NINE 1 opment and construction). With this redesign, this whole area will be much freer to use in multiple ways during fes- tivals, special events and outdoor sales events. But it will simultaneously appear softer and green- er, due to the elimination of the hard concrete fountain platform, the planting of the nine new tall \./ trees, and the provision (once again) of a functioning water fountain centerpiece. 8. Center Pavilion and Its Access Ramp Area. As a raised "stage" suitable for music concerts, other performances and occasional speech- making, the Center Pavilion serves an vital community purpose and should be retained. However, the brick access ramp and planters adjoining the Center Pavilion to the west are in poor repair. Flowers and shrubs placed in these planters have fared poorly, especially near the pavilion, where the roof blocks sunlight and the soil and plants are regularly trampled underfoot. The Committee recommends that the ramp and planter area be redesigned and rebuilt. In the proposed conceptual redesign (see the two Figure D drawings), the ramp is reconfigured so it extends less far to the west, and is surrounded by four tall canopy trees, three rising from ground-level grills with uplights and a fourth rising from a portion of planter than would be retained (allowing the concrete electric access box to remain where it is). The three chess tables recommended to be removed from their current location further west on the Commons should be arrayed amid the new trees. The compact new design would provide new flexible space flowing in with the similar space created by the redesign of the fountain area. The 1975 bronze plaque dedicating the Ithaca Commons to "the citizens of Ithaca as a public gathering place, a commercial center and a community focal point," now located on a con- crete post at the southwest corner of the Center Pavilion, should be prominently displayed in the final detailed design for this area. 9. Brick Circle. The Brick Circle is an example of an attractive, intelligent design seriously marred by poor workmanship during its construction. The bricks were not laid with proper subsurface support. Uneven settling has resulted in an irregular top surface, which has grown worse year by year. The Committee recommends relaying the bricks properly to attain the even surface origi- nally intended by the circle's designer. This would also provide the opportunity to better realize the original design intent that the Brick Circle's periphery resemble the tick marks around the cir- cumference of a compass. This could be accomplished by installing bright yellow and dark choco- late brown bricks in the current pattern around the circle's periphery(the present tan and brown bricks there are so dull and similar in color that the original concept is unrecognizable). 10. Children's Play Area. The play area (like the tree grove in front of Fleet Bank) is among the Commons' most PAGE THIRTY I Renewing the Design of the Ithaca Commons Popular places, and should clearly be retained. But it may be possible to make a good thing even better. Motion and color could be added to the existing play structure by placing poles flying banners on its pyramidal roofs. Lamps mounted in nearby trees could bathe the play area in different hues, and bulbs could be placed ' atop the pyramidal roofs themselves. Finally, the effective play area could be extended eastward by maintaining a wood chip path through the planter east of the play structure—where children tend to scramble already. Indeed, it may be possible to provide more visual, aural or communi- cation "events" designed to enchant children at various places throughout the Commons. 11. Planter Adjacent to Easternmost Commons Pavilion. The same basic problems existing at the west end of the Commons also pertain here. Currently a large planter with a row of multi-trunked conifers is crowded against the west edge of the East Pavilion. This situation blocks visibility into the Commons from East State and Aurora Streets and helps create an unattractive shadowy gloom beneath the pavilion roof. Furthermore, the planter creates a physical "dead end" at the pavilion's west edge, precisely where pedestrian r movement into the Commons should be encouraged, rather than blocked. It would also be desir- able to create new flexible space at this end of the Commons, to make the area under the pavil- ion roof suitable for more activities, and to allow crowds to witness pavilion events or concerts from all sides. All these considerations point to removal of the planter. On the other hand, the existing large planter has some undeniably positive features, including a particularly attractive three-trunked oak tree and well-maintained flowers that bloom the summer long. Some adjacent merchants, furthermore, have expressed their desire that the planter not be removed. Because legitimate concerns here are in some conflict, the Committee recommends that — in addition to the alternative illustrated in Figure E — other possible design solutions for this area be devised and evaluated. These other alternatives could preserve part of the existing planter • (such as the southern half with the oak), or supply new wooden flower planters, while accom- modating the desire for better east-west visibility and enhanced pedestrian movement through the pavilion. Whatever the final design solution may be, the Committee believes that the Commons as a whole would benefit if the west edge of the East Pavilion would no longer present a shadowy visual and physical "dead end." (See the two Figure E drawings.) In the alternative illustrated on the right-hand page of Figure E, the eastern pavilion would stay, but the adjacent planter would be removed and replaced with four large trees each provid- ed with an uplight at its base. With this change (in addition to the removal of the clock tower and bollards advocated earlier) the view under the pavilion and through the trunks of the four new trees would be uninterrupted, encouraging people to enter the Commons along this route. Instead of existing as a dark dead end, the pavilion would now function as a covered gateway 1 through which people could move. The new flexible space would increase potential uses for the pavilion, and on days when it hosted concerts, crowds could now gather around it on all sides. If this alternative is selected, new bicycle racks would have to be provided, perhaps at the north- Report of the Commons Design Review Committee I PAGE THIRTY-ONE h FIGURE E: EAST END OF PRIMARY COMMONS E X I S T I N G CON D I T I O N S . . , I ,_ , .._, , , , ,,,,,,, ,, , 3 I 01¢ % y 4, • • ( ( N ' J �\ � a ms's sI3.s, ,, ,,,, ,. li ^,ga,a,^` LI ,,,, ^ e c .,e''....., .,,,,,,"4 '',5'.• V' 12 ,,,.„ ,.,.. „‘„ .7%°.«'&3',V*::„.,, 6 a -..:- V, , 1$22...,'..-'‘ Th-, ..,* ,-.A .'.:,. 1, a 'yak M . --14.v"" , ,, ,,,, 6 E Iii . . , I A A A A 0 0 0 0 I 1. PLANTER: This planter's location makes the East Pavilion a"dead end"both visually and phys- ically. It blocks the visual axis from the east that would otherwise pass under the pavilion roof onto the Commons, and it also prevents pedestrians from using this same axis as a welcom- ing "processional route" onto the Commons. The planter's three multi-trunked conifers are scraggly and past their prime, darken the pavilion and block views into the Commons from II Aurora Street The multi-trunked oak, however, is handsome. 2. EAST PAVILION: The area under this pavilion is now rather gloomy and unappealing.This is II partly due to the dark stain on its wood ceiling, but more substantially due to the planter crowding its west edge and to light blockage from the planter's three tall conifers, which are lined up in a row adjacent to the pavilion roof. II 3. TIME/TEMPERATURE TOWER: Its location blocks views into the Commons, while its starkly modern design is unsympathetic with the Commons' largely nineteenth century architecture. 4. BOLLARDS: The thick, heavy concrete bollards present an unfriendly appearance;they seem I to say "keep out" rather than "welcome in." However, unlike the north and west Commons entrances, defensive bollards of some kind (though not necessarily so massive) are needed here protect the Commons on those occasions when cars or trucks descending East State Street lose their brakes. .., II PAGE THIRTY-TWO I Renewing the Design of the Ithaca Commons I .. ... I . , I . . A N D PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS _..�._ ��� W _��� �,_,,. �� Other design alternatives for this area should be explored.Such alternatives might preserve s I part of the existing planter,or supply new wooden flower planters,while also providing enhanced east-west visibility and pedestrian movement through the pavilion.Whatever the final design solution,the Committee believes the Commons as a whole would benefit if the - west edge of the East Pavilion no longer presented a shadowy visual and physical"dead end." ■rte, z xs rues isi�yia 1* "- s,, Est s tX ;.:,,,, ,Eis'sr .a :3" `;1 yy z iS 1x; Ibiss�d ! ��l I. • r r xt Z \ I k ...",,,, l w ` t A [ o 0 0 0 I I. PLANTER RETAINED: This planter would be retained,and could be augmented by a sculpture designed by a local artist at the position marked by the irt symbol. Such a sculpture would culminate a visual axis extending beneath the pavilion roof and through the new tree grove. II2. NEW CANOPY TREES: In the design alternative shown above,the old planter is removed and replaced by new tall trees rising from pavement grills and illuminated by uplights. Both views and pedestrians from the east now pass through and beyond the pavilion into the Commons. IHowever,other design alternatives for this area should be explored (see note on the drawing). 3. EAST PAVILION: The atmosphere under this pavilion is made brighter and more cheerful by I (1) lightening the color of its wood ceiling; (2) adding permanent festive miniature lights on its wood beams and roofline;and (3) removing the planter now darkening its west edge. 4. NEW ENTRY TREATMENT: The current bollards and clock towers at all three Commons I entrances are removed, and a new coordinated design for the Commons' entrances is creat- ed and installed.The revised design might include analogue clocks mounted on posts and new directory maps located off to the sides of the Commons' entrances. Warmer, more inviting I pavement with panels designed by local artists could highlight these important public entry points. Unlike the other two Commons entries, new thinner bollards are needed here because of the danger posed by cars or trucks losing their breaks while descending East State Street. Report of the Commons Design Review Committee I PAGE THIRTY—THREE FIGURE F: NORTH END OF BANK ALLEY EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . I � ' d Y s1 3�� � � ��tda \ r, f �a ��e $$k n co .f y �,'�k ��,r'� '� ex x:,-s,„ + -'. A. -4(•• 3 lij,A:. ‘z; ', ii kv"1 5 O x is ✓ .�`?. n s k V ..• '',c0,- :- tk .- '- rt.. i,,,,ix.,:_:::4,:::i lii,.?,:41":,,,,:::::,:i,:;:,1:33-,..!1,,v1,N,,ii':ii,"?.' 1. BOLLARDS: As noted at the other Commons entires, the massive masonry bollards present an unfriendly appearance;their design character seems more defensive than welcoming. 2. TIME/TEMPERATURE TOWER: Its location blocks views into the Commons, while its starkly modern design is unsympathetic with the Commons' largely nineteenth century architecture. 3. Two NORTHERNMOST BANK ALLEY PLANTERS: Neither of these planters is very successful. Each contains plantings which substantially block visibility into the Commons at eye level, especially the large northeast planter with its two medium-sized evergreens and its three larches. Nor do these planters mold space in any particularly attractive or useful manner.The drinking fountain at the south end of the larger planter has been broken for at least three years due to plumbing problems hidden deep within the concrete at its base. 4. LACK OF CANOPY TREES IN THE NORTHERN PORTION OF BANK ALLEY: Despite the pres- ence of the two planters, this whole northern portion of Bank Alley presents a rather hard, gray, barren appearance.This seems largely due to the fact that this portion of the Commons is completely lacking in tall canopy trees. PAGE THIRTY-FOUR ( Renewing the Design of the Ithaca Commons . . . AND PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS of w NEW ENTRY TREATMENT �� .£�.. �� a (to be designed) •- .A. -4....0 ,. , vi ea �� , P a w,9 vi�• 3r ' r r._ . ��t3N1 , At°et t ` ,,� , ra . �s��# 1 er-'741,,:::,..7.1,!' -t,-,'f.,..,,, . f -.4....0 r :! fit`i7f2:%,i,-„ klDittlritIli,;:s:„.,!,,,‘;',%;174.,, ut'''1,:,'-c:--fa.,,,,:'::,,,,,,„.,Lgt11:4/44.7v.,:tili!,44,..,..,,-;:z-4:.!c"7::, 1 0 I L •., €f�N 1 k 2 o a < g� ' .c. 4 E . Q € £._.. ?,0 € :,,,F__ ,,, --ir '::::,:'?"';e:.,...,.o •47 te' 1 1. NEW ENTRY TREATMENT: The current bollards and clock towers at all three Commons entrances are removed, and a new coordinated entry design is installed. The revised design might include post-mounted analogue clocks and new directory maps off to the sides of the Commons'entrances.Warmer pavement, perhaps enlivened by artistic panels, is encouraged. 2. NEW CANOPY TREES: Two new rows of tall trees, reminiscent of the rows of plane trees on ( Cornell's Ho Plaza, create a new grand north entrance to the Commons, replacing the two for- mer mer northernmost planters. Each tree is illuminated by an uplight during evening and night- time hours,increasing ambient lighting and providing a magical atmosphere.Visibility into the t 3. Commons from the north is greatly improved, and a large new flexible-use space is created. Low WALLS DEFINING THE EDGE: New low walls define the edge where, historically and urbanistically, a building ought to be. An opening in this wall exists at the same general loca- 1 tion where the ornate entrance to the Cornell Public Library stood until about 1965. The symbols indicate the possibility of incorporating new locally-designed sculptures into this area. 4. OTHER BANK ALLEY PLANTERS: All other Bank Alley planters are retained. i Report of the Commons Design Review Committee I PAGE THIRTY-FIVE east corner of the Rothschild Building, or perhaps along an angled edge of the nearby planter that will be retained. 12. North End of Bank Alley. A new treatment is proposed here that would create a more dramatic entry into the Commons, increase the presence of tall trees in the area, and at the same time provide a large new area of flexible space. Currently this area presents a rather sterile, hard and gray impression, despite the presence of one small and one large planter. This appearance is probably caused by the complete absence here of tall canopy trees. The medium-size vegetation in these planters, including a number of conifers and larches, interferes with views into the Commons from the north. The Committee proposes that these two northernmost planters be removed and replaced by parallel rows of tall trees (see the two Figure F drawings), making the whole area seem greener and providing more multiple-use space at ground level. The open "promenade" space between these tree rows would align with the central open space (and fire lane) running down the remain- der of Bank Alley. Uplights would be installed at the base of each of these ten new canopy trees to increase evening illumination and provide a magical visual effect. A new low wall with pedestrian openings would separate this redesigned area from the Fleet Bank drive-in area, to provide definition at the only location where no building establishes the Primary Commons' edge. New locally-designed sculptures could also be used to define this edge, either in combination with, or instead of, the low wall. Although the center of Bank Alley is already open along its entire length, the proposed double row of trees at its northern end would create a sense of definition and drama to this vista now lacking. (See, for example, the effectiveness of the southern portion of Cornell University's Ho Plaza, with its parallel rows of plane trees.) The Committee is not recommending design changes to the southern three-quarters of Bank Alley; here, the planters, trees and all Sagan Planet Walk monuments would remain unchanged. 13. Areas of Richer, More Inviting Pavement. In those cases when the design alterations called for above would require new paving, the Committee suggests relieving the grayness of the original Commons concrete with areas of rich- er, more inviting paving materials (e.g., patterned pavers in warm earth tones). This could occur as part of the new treatments suggested for the three main Commons entrances, and as part of the modifications recommended elsewhere on the Commons — such as in the area where the old water fountain would be removed. Panels (e.g., ceramic, embossed metal, or mosaic) designed by local artists and incorpo- rated into the existing concrete pavement or the repaved areas could also enliven the Commons' PAGE THIRTY-SIX I Renewing the Design of the Ithaca Commons I • visual environment. The number of small historical plaques comprising "Ithaca Underfoot" could ' also Be increased. 14. Improved Commons Banners. The bright red, blue, yellow and green banners added to Commons light poles a few years ago provide welcome color. However, even more visual interest could be provided by banners bearing lively graphic designs. One possibility is to allow downtown businesses to sponsor such banners. The visual quality of these would have to be carefully controlled, and no verbal com- mercial messages would be allowed aside from "signature" logos. The Ithaca Downtown Partnership has allocated some money for banner improvements in its 1999 budget. 15. Possible Sculptures in Planters and Elsewhere. Public art has been an important component of successful downtown revitalization in other cities, and opportunities exist for sculptures by local artists to be incorporated in Commons planters. For example, the modifications suggested above for the Commons' east and west ends provide new visual axes through the east and west pavilions and nearby trees — axes that could end dramatically with sculptures in the planters where these new visual perspectives end. See also the right-hand page of Figure F for possible new sculpture locations which could help define the edge between Bank Alley and the Fleet Bank drive-in area. 16. Improved Street Furniture. Consideration should be given to a design concept that would make the various items of Commons street furniture (trash and recycling containers, phone booths, benches, signage, etc.) visually sympathetic one to the other, as well as to the architecture of the Commons and its sur- rounding buildings. The existing trash and recycling containers, in particular, are nondescript at best, bearing no visual relationship either to the design of the Commons itself or to the predominantly nine- teenth-century architecture of most downtown buildings. It is suggested that these unfortunate containers be replaced with new ones carefully evaluated from both aesthetic and functional points of view. Public postering boards or kiosks should also be provided in the central downtown area, on or near the Primary Commons. 17. Unified Program of Public Signage. A unified program of public-realm signage (consistent in design and graphics) should be Report of the Commons Design Review Committee I PAGE THIRTY-SEVEN established for the entire downtown area. One level of this signage should be suitable for and directed at automobile and bicycle traffic on City streets, guiding motorists and bicyclists to the Central Business District and Commons and the municipal parking garages. Another level of sig- nage should be pedestrian-oriented, illustrating and/or explaining routes between important downtown attractions (for example, illustrating pedestrian routes between the Commons and the DeWitt Mall, between the Commons and the new Tompkins County Public Library, between all the foregoing and the Tompkins County Museum, etc., etc. 18. New Public Restrooms. While the Committee has not identified any specific site, public restrooms are needed on the Primary Commons. It is hoped that the City of Ithaca and the Ithaca Downtown Partnership will cooperate in seeking a suitable solution to the current lack of these facilities. 19. Program for Restoring Historic Building Facades. One unique Commons attribute that malls and roadside strips will never be able to dupli- cate, or even successfully imitate, is the Commons' social, cultural and architectural history and authenticity. The rows of nineteenth century facades along much of the Commons are a resource whose beauty and integrity should be emphasized and promoted. It is suggested, therefore, that the City of Ithaca and the Ithaca Downtown Partnership cooperate on establishing a unified program to promote facade improvements, with an emphasis on enhancing the Commons' many nineteenth-century facades. Historic preservation and reno- vation programs have been central to successful downtown revitalization programs in cities throughout America. 20. Parts of the Commons Not Specifically Mentioned Above. No design modifications are envisioned for those areas of the Primary Commons not list- ed above—though necessary maintenance repairs and improved plantings should occur as need- ed throughout the area. (Recommendations concerning Commons maintenance and plantings are discussed in SECTION FOUR.) 21. Conceptual Design Only. It is worth repeating: the conceptual design ideas outlined above are just that; a compre- hensive final design based on the above concepts will have to be prepared by a professional archi- tect. PAGE THIRTY-EIGHT Renewing the Design of the Ithaca Commons I . I I I I SEC 1 HON THREE I Recommendations for Improving The Secondary Ithaca Commons. Iuggestions for improving the secondary Ithaca Commons center around the need for `./ improved pedestrian and vehicular / bicycle circulation patterns. The two most pressing needs are (1) for an improved mid-block pedestrian route linking the central Commons via the Home Dairy Alley and across Green Street to the heavily-used bus shelter and the new site of the Tompkins County Public Library, and (2) for an end to the unnecessary one-way traffic flows ' on Cayuga Street and all but one block of Aurora Street. These one-way patterns do little but impede access to the Commons by motorists and bicyclists alike. 1. Restore Two Way Traffic on Cayuga & Most of Aurora Streets. ' The Committee believes the current one-way traffic pattern on the streets nearest the pri- mary Commons is both confusing and discouraging to potential downtown visitors. For the most part, Green and Seneca Streets both lack the streetside retail activity that would alert visitors to the fact that the City's historic retail center exists only one block away. Travelers heading east on Green Street zip right past the Central Business District, having seen only one retail space in the three-block-long stretch of road from Cayuga Street to the Tuning Fork, by which point they may have already decided to head up the hill to Cornell. Green Street motorists and bicyclists are not even provided with an opportunity to turn left onto Cayuga Street to reach or discover the Commons. The Seneca Street streetscape is somewhat better, with the DeWitt Mall, in particular, Report of the Commons Design Review Committee I PAGE THIRTY-NINE I providing a highly positive visual impression. Nevertheless, much of Seneca Street near the Commons also lacks streetside retail activity. (See topic "6. Humanizing the Seneca & Green Streetscapes" below for other problems with the current character of these streets.) Both the Green and Seneca "entrances" to the downtown, in short, encourage visitors to �./ keep on driving and make a speedy "exit," rather than enticing them to slow down or stop to explore the downtown area. Unfortunately, both Green and Seneca in the vicinity of the Commons are owned and controlled by the N.Y.S. Department of Transportation, and it is high- ly unlikely the state authorities would allow them to revert to two-way streets. This circumstance makes the traffic patterns on Aurora and Cayuga Streets — which the City does control — even more vital to the visibility and health of the Commons. The original rationale for making Aurora Street one way was to accommodate the large, sudden influx of vehi- cles resulting from the afternoon end of workshifts at Morse Chain and NCR— but this traffic surge no longer exists. Furthermore, traffic moving from East Hill to South Hill has increased sub- stantially since Aurora Street was originally made one-way headed north. Currently, the only ways to get from East Hill to South Hill are via the long route around the Commons using Cayuga Street or via State Street. The shorter, preferred route of State Street gets so congested that there are times of day when traffic is backed up past Stewart Avenue. Research done by the Task Force on Traffic Issues in 1994 found that the original impetus for making Cayuga Street one-way was solely to balance the proposed one-way on Aurora Street, rather than because of any capacity problems. Furthermore, the current proposed City capital project for redirecting traffic onto the Cayuga Street bridge over Six Mile Creek will bring new pressures on traffic moving north through the Central Business District. The Cayuga / Aurora one-way pair also limits accessibility to the Commons from many downtown neighborhoods. Complaints about the need to take a circuitous route to gain access to the Commons or to a parking garage are common. For several reinforcing reasons, therefore, the Committee recommends that Cayuga Street be restored to two-way traffic for its entire length. The Committee's Aurora Street recommenda- tion is somewhat more involved. The Committee recommends returning Aurora Street to two-way traffic north of Seneca Street only. It does not recommend making the 100 block of North Aurora Street two-way because of the heavy traffic volumes here. However, the Committee strongly urges serious consideration of a design which would change the direction of that block to one-way heading south. As part of this option, the 300 block of East State Street would become one-way heading east to form a mini-circle when Seneca Way and Seneca Street are included. Potential benefits from this proposed configuration should be thoroughly studied and evaluated. 2. Creating a Pedestrian Plaza in Front of the Wanzer Bloch. The Committee endorses the realignment of the intersection of East State and South Aurora Streets such that the former meets the later a right angle and a plaza of substantial size is created in front of the Wanzer Block (see conceptual illustration from the City of Ithaca's 1992 Downtown Design Plan, which first proposed this idea.) PAGE FORTY Renewing the Design of the Ithaca Commons I • • I." ..,,,.,. ,,,,, \, ,.\\ ., . $ at. 142 1 EAST END ifiiifrr,._OF ITHACA * • I i 1111/■ffififi/Ii 't + z �}�/� iiii//fiiiiii/I COM IONS r - .r' ii/iifiiiii•R! ) o 4 ■iiiiiiltiUP //////� .. . •iiC>>`F I ES . . t G t4 V3atlei !!`ti ,gyp*S \� t � \ t O isa IG ,' :�}\\ \ E r \\\"',\\\\\\ '. ,. Ithis new plaza would provide a visual and functional link between the Commons and the u western third of the 300 block of East State Street, and could be used as beautiful new outdoor Idining area near the existing successful Aurora Street "Restaurant Row" The new crosswalk link- ing this plaza to the Commons would be extra-wide and paved in brick to emphasize its special Iconnecting role. The plaza would align with the new visual and pedestrian axis that would be opened up per suggestions for improving the east end of the Commons proposed elsewhere in this report, thereby complementing and strengthening these earlier suggestions. In addition to its Iown merits, the new plaza would serve as an attractive, busy, living "advertisement" for the Commons visible to passing motorists and bicyclists on East State and Aurora Streets. IThe numerous merits of realigning this intersection and creating this playa should be stud- ied in the context of the proposals made in Item 1. above. (Note: The illustration above should I be regarded only as a conceptual design; the final design should preserve sightlines into the Commons from East State Street and provide bollards protecting the new plaza from any vehicles losing their brakes while descending East Hill.) I 3. Pedestrian Route: Home Dairy Alley to Green St. & Beyond. IThe Committee believes the connection between Green Street and the primary Ithaca Commons is of key importance. Green Street, in its role as Route 79, is a major vehicular entry I � Report of the Commons Design Review Committee 1 PAGE FORTY-ONE I — as indicated above — a visitor can travel along it completely into Ithaca's downtown, but t g p y Unaware that a pedestrian mall exists only one block to the north. Strengthening this relationship, especially in light of the pending move of the Tompkins County Public Library to the former Woolworth site, is a high priority. Therefore, the Committee proposes that a strong mid-block pedestrian link be created 1 between the pedestrian mall, Green Street, the existing heavily-used bus shelter on the west side of Green Street, and the new library site. More specifically, the Committee proposes that: (1) The existing Home Dairy Alley be made a more visible and inviting pedestrian con- nector. In the long term, this might be accomplished by introducing special colorful paving, and by penetrating the walls to the existing structures to expand their commercial presence and enliv- en the currently static Alley space. A short term strategy should include the introduction of new lighting signaling the Alley's presence at both its ends and increasing the sense of safety and wel- come one feels while walking along it. The lighting scheme might include colored neon bulbs marking the Alley's entrances and enlivening its route. (2) A dedicated pedestrian route be created from the south end of the current Home Dairy Alley, through the privately-owned parking lot under the Green Street parking ramp, to Green Street (with the City of Ithaca holding an easement over this entire route). In other words, the Home Dairy Alley should be extended in a straight line all the way to Green Street. Here, an archi- tecturally expressed gateway, clearly visible to passing Green Street traffic, should be constructed. This gateway should be labeled "ITHACA COMMONS" in lettering also easily seen by passing motorists. Colorful paving and lighting (which must not obstruct vehicular movement within the parking lot) should visually mark this entire new passageway from the Alley to Green Street. If retail uses are ever developed under the Green Street parking ramp, this pedestrian route could be an attractive customer-generating and customer-pleasing attribute of that development. (3) The City formally request the N.Y.S. Department of Transportation to establish a pedes- trian crosswalk over Green Street (with traffic signal) directly connecting the pedestrian route described above with the bus shelter and the new Tompkins County Public Library on the other side of the street. In other words, the City should ask the D.o.T. to move the traffic signal already existing a little further east on Green Street to a new location linked directly with the new Home- Dairy-Alley-to-Green-Street passageway. An arcade could be used to connect this crosswalk with the relocated Library's entrance. (Note: Although the new library entrance will probably be at the corner of Cayuga and Green, pedestrian traffic between the Library entrance and the eastern potion of the primary Commons will nevertheless, per human nature, tend to seek out the short- est path between two goals —which in this case will still pass through the Home Dairy Alley.) (4) The City also establish a dedicated walkway leading from the new Green Street cross- walk to the pedestrian bridge passing over Six Mile Creek to the City Court Building. (5) A short vehicle pull-off on the north side of Green Street be created, where cars could briefly stop to drop off or pick up pedestrians headed to or from the Commons. This pull-off should be located near (but not exactly at) the extended Home Dairy Alley route. One final thought: The Home Dairy Alley, the new pedestrian route between the Alley and Green Street, the crosswalk across Green Street, and connections between the crosswalk and the PAGE FORTY-TWO I Renewing the Design of the Ithaca Commons ' *bus shelter and the Library could be paved throughout with brick of a single distinctive color, as ail additional linking gesture. • 4. Improvements to Pedestrian Crosswalks. As a detail intended to improve both aesthetics and pedestrian safety, the Committee rec- ommends that the crosswalks on streets in the vicinity of the Commons be paved in warm-col- ored brick with white brick edging. The brick would be much more attractive than asphalt, and the white brick edging would never wear away, as street striping paint does after only a few months. The brick surface should be smooth and flat, so it does not in any way interfere with wheelchair accessibility. 5. Remove 'Concrete Bunkers' on Cayuga Street. On the east side of South Cayuga Street near Angelheart and the primary Commons are a number of waist-high planters which are not particularly attractive and tend to interfere with pedestrian movements. It is not possible to plant tall trees here due to a basement beneath the sidewalk. Since pedestrian activity along the east side of Cayuga will likely increase substantially with the opening of the relocated Tompkins County Public Library, the Committee suggests that these particular "concrete bunkers," as one Committee member referred to them, be removed. The lower planters containing tall canopy trees further south on Cayuga Street, in the vicinity of Danos, the Corner Book Store and the old City Hall Annex, might be reduced some- what in size to facilitate pedestrian movements and allow other sidewalk uses, such as outdoor dining. However, nothing should be done that would harm the health of the existing trees. 6. Humanizing the Seneca & Green Streetscapes. Currently Seneca and Green Streets in the vicinity of the Commons provide motorists with few clues they are driving through an historic downtown commercial district. Street trees are few in number (those that exist being mostly small and stunted) and sidewalks are narrow, because the pavement width of both streets here is about six feet wider than their pavement width west of Cayuga Street. (Specifically, City records indicate that Seneca and Green are 46 feet wide curb- to-curb east of Cayuga, but only 40 feet wide curb-to-curb west of Cayuga.) The resulting rather harsh streetscapes, which Committee members have compared to "canyons," do not do justice to the beauty of most of the primary and secondary Commons, and do not convey this beauty to anyone traveling by. And the narrow, mostly treeless sidewalks directly adjoining these streets are places pedestrians try to avoid. If Seneca and Green Streets east of Cayuga could be narrowed by the above six feet to the same width as Seneca and Green Streets west of Cayuga, with perhaps another two feet being gained by using slightly narrower parking lanes, tree lawns could be created separating the side- Report of the Commons Design Review Committee I PAGE FORTY-THREE walks from the streets and allowing the planting of continuous rows of tall street trees along both `routes. (This slight narrowing of the excessively wide portions of East Seneca and East Green Streets would not interfere with plans to establish bikes lanes along them, because the resulting street widths would match the existing widths of West Seneca and West Green Streets.) Curb "bump-outs" at crosswalks could add to both aesthetics and pedestrian safety, and establishment of the proposed bike lanes would further humanize these roads. Altogether these improvements could result in streets whose character is more like historic boulevards and less like barren highways. The Committee urges the City to seek implementation of the above streetscape improvements, which would require approval from the N.Y.S. Depart- ment of Transportation. 7. New Outlets for Holiday Lights on Cayuga & Aurora. For many years, the lack of outlets for holiday season lighting on Cayuga and Aurora Streets has necessitated stringing wires from the ends of the primary Commons along the length of these streets. As a result, the miniature lights in the trees here shine quite dimly. Provision of even a few electric outlets at appropriate locations along these streets would allow future holiday lighting on Cayuga and Aurora to shine at full brightness, and permit the elimination of some unsightly overhead wiring. Such outlets should be provided as part of the overall Commons ren- ovation project. • p p p p • p p p PAGE FORTY-FOUR I Renewing the Design of the Ithaca Commons _ _ . . I SECTION FOUR Maintenance & Plantings: I Immediate and Ongoing Needs. bile many recommendations have been made concerning design modifications to the Commons, the Commons Design Review Committee also recommends that the City give high priority to addressing long-standing Commons deferred maintenance issues, improving its ongoing care and cleaning and enhancing its plantings. No physical changes to the Commons will be effective in the long run if they are not accompanied by an ongoing, never-end- ing commitment to the daily and annual maintenance activities necessary to keep the Commons in top-notch condition. 1. Items Needing Immediate Repair, & Then Ongoing Care. Before presenting a complete list of current Commons maintenance needs, the Committee wishes to stress the immediate benefits that would be achieved by cleaning the entire Commons by the method known as hot washing. The resulting deep cleaning would give the area an imme- diate facelift at relatively little cost, since the City's Department of Public Works already owns a I hot wash machine. Thoroughly hot washing the Commons' pavement, as well as all of its three- dimensional masonry elements (e.g., the concrete walls of the planters, the concrete posts of the pavilions, the concrete housings for electrical boxes, etc.) should be done every spring and includ- ed in the annual Commons budget. This, in conjunction with improved daily clean-up of litter from the Commons' pavement Report of the Commons Design Review Committee I PAGE FORTY FIVE and planters, could vastly improve the Commons' reputation as an attractive, well-maintained, 'people-friendly civic center. Following is a full list of items in need of immediate attention and then improved ongoing annual maintenance: li% ALL COMMONS MASONRY: Hot wash all pavement, planter walls, pavilion posts, etc. in the spring of 1999, and repeat every spring thereafter. (See discussion above.) ENTIRE ITHACA COMMONS: Improve daily clean-up of litter, with attention being given to the planters as well as the pavement. (See discussion above.) giBRICK PAVEMENT: In numerous place on both the Primary and Secondary Commons, brick pavers are loose, cracked or spalled. In some places this damage is quite advanced. All such brick pavers should be replaced. INCONCRETE PAVEMENT: Certain areas of concrete pavement also require repair. .�' SEALANT BETWEEN BRICK PAVERS AND CONCRETE PLANTER WALLS: Virtually everywhere on the Commons, the original sealant has decayed to the point where weeds grow freely between the brick strip and the planter walls, or paper scraps and cigarette butts collect in the gap where sealant belongs. Such sights detract substantially from the attractiveness of the Commons. Sealant around the planters should be replaced throughout the Commons. CONCRETE PLANTERS AND CONCRETE STEPS: Repair the many corners that have been damaged by snow plows and other vehicles used on the Commons. In addition, the non- slip surface on the amphitheater steps has decayed severely and should be replaced. Remove all graffiti as its appears. re SIGNS: Remove and replace dented or damaged signs, and clean those signs whose message has been obscured by graffiti. (See recommendation in SECTION Two calling for a unified pro- gram of new public-realm signage in the entire downtown area.) hiarig BANNERS: Some of the lightpole banners are missing, and others need repairs to their attachment mechanisms. The Ithaca Downtown Partnership has budgeted some money for work on the banners in its 1999 budget. t"1 BIKE RACKS: The recommendations in SECTION Two would require some existing bike rack areas to be replaced with new ones. This should be done in consultation with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Council. The bike rack metal hoops are best left unpainted, since J any paint on the non-rust metal will be immediately chipped by bike chains. If paint must be used PAGE FORTY-SIX I Renewing the Design of the Ithaca Commons I for some reason, then a silver paint matching the metal should be used, so the paint chipping will 'be less obvious. r'BUS SHELTERS: TCAT is apparently about to install some new bus shelters at the corners of Cayuga and East State Streets. All remaining older bus shelters should be thoroughly cleaned and repainted, and kept that way. Light bulbs should be replaced as they burn out. (The Woolworth bus shelter was nearly dark at night for the better part of 1998 before the many burnt- out bulbs in its fixtures were finally replaced, and its benches are still heavily covered with graffiti. Neglected maintenance like this should be unacceptable to both the City and TCAT.) t LIGHT POLES: All light poles within the Primary and Secondary Commons need repainting. Many have damaged paint and rust spots; these problems are particularly apparent on the Secondary Commons. Also, many poles need new plates at their bases to cover exposed elec- trical wires. Consideration should be given to painting the poles in some tasteful color other than black, perhaps a dark teal green. This would be one simple way to add an appealing dash of color to the Commons. rTREE GRILLS: Many tree grills on the Primary and Secondary Commons have been crudely "repaired" by welding unsightly sheet metal plates to the original grills. These ugly plates then proceed to rust and break off. All tree grills with broken elements or these welded plates should be replaced with new grills. The one currently missing grill on the Commons (in front of the Colonial Building) and the two missing grills on West State Street should also be replaced. CATCH BASINS: Remove trash, leaves and debris on a regular basis. SDRINKING FOUNTAINS: It has now been at least three years since all three drinking fountains on the Commons were functioning. All Commons drinking fountains should be kept in good working order, and kept clean. Note: The recommendations in SECTION Two call for the removal of the planter to which the Bank Alley drinking fountain is attached. However, this drink- ing fountain has not been working for at least three years, and repairing it would apparently require ripping out concrete at its base to gain access to the problem. Perhaps this fountain could be repaired and then retained in its existing location as a free-standing fountain, or else newly attached to the planter now immediately to its south. 11 BENCHES: Throughout the Commons, the existing wood on the benches is warped, i�li g g rP chipped and split. All existing wood should be removed and replaced with new wood that has been properly sealed against the elements. Painting the new wood a teal green color(see light pole suggestion above) could also contribute to the visual appeal of the Commons. el P, CONCRETE POST OF AURORA STREET PAVILION: Needs repair. I � Report of the Commons Design Review Committee I PAGE FORTY-SEVEN t � RdPLAQUE ON MILLSTONE IN BANK ALLEY: The current rotting piece of wood atop this millstone formerly supported a bronze plaque which read as follows: MILI STONE I EARLY 1800'S COMPOSED OF "SHAWANGUNK GRIT" OR "ESOPUS STONE" QUARRIED IN ULSTER COUNTY, N.Y. FOUND UNDER THE FOUNDATION OF THE "BLOOD BLOCK" AT THIS SITE FEBRUARY, 1974 This plaque should be recast and refastened to the millstone in a secure and attractive manner. `ai[ CLOCK TOWERS: This report recommends the existing clock towers be removed as part of a new design treatment for the Commons' entrances. However, if a decision is neverthe- less made to retain the clock towers, they should be thoroughly refurbished and repainted. 2. Enhancing the Plantings on the Commons. A subcommittee was formed to consider and make recommendations concerning Commons plantings, which are essential to maintaining the area's attractiveness. Based on the work of this subcommittee, which analyzed each planter individually, the Commons Design Review Committee makes the following general recommendations for improving and maintaining plantings on the Commons: rdThe conceptual design recommendations presented in SECTION Two call, collective- ly, for a net increase of 21 tall canopy trees on the Primary Ithaca Commons. (That is, a total of six existing tall canopy trees would be removed, while a total of 27 new tall canopy trees would be added.) These new trees would substantially increase the quantity of greenery on the Commons, but in a manner that preserves flexibility of use and visibility at pedestrian level. Careful consideration should be given to determining an appropriate distribution of new tree species that are both beautiful and viable in the Commons' urban environment. PAGE FORTY-EIGHT I Renewing the Design of the Ithaca Commons ;; I . s v: The lower limbs in existing trees should be pruned wherever they interfere with vis- ibility at eye level. ' �,1 In those areas where achieving this report's recommendations would require pave- ment replacement, the existing soil should be removed at the same time and replaced with struc- tural soil. "Structural soil" is specifically formulated to resist compaction under paved urban areas, ' thereby enhancing healthy tree root growth. Doing this would contribute substantially to the vigor and longevity of the Commons' existing and proposed trees. ri) Visibility at pedestrian eye level should be maintained in all planters, both when ' looking across the Commons from storefront to storefront as well as when looking into the Commons at its Cayuga, Aurora and East Seneca Street entrances. Prune as necessary. ' ri Both the quantity and seasonal variety of flowers in the Commons' planters should be enhanced. A seasonal approach should be adopted to ensure lush, colorful flower displays dur- ing the changing spring, summer and early fall growing seasons. This means greatly increasing the number of spring bulb plants, and also increasing the number of flowers that will bloom into late fall (such as chrysanthemums). Although the recommendations in this report would somewhat ' reduce the overall number of Commons planters, the Committee feels that improving the quali- ty of the flower displays in the many remaining planters could actually increase the prominence of flowering plants on the Commons. nThe owners of buildings fronting the Commons should be encouraged to set up and maintain flower boxes on these buildings' facades, to enhance the overall impression of flowering color. (Consider the effectiveness of this community enhancement in many European historic city centers.) IMIn addition to those portions of the planters that are devoted to annuals, perennials r should be planted where appropriate to ease maintenance. tII Periodically, the soil in the planters should be remediated to maintain plant health. ' gg All planters should be mulched annually. This will add to the uniform attractiveness of the planters and increase soil moisture retention. `h The planters should be watered as necessary to promote lush flower displays. This means much more attention should be devoted to planter watering than has typically been the case in recent years, especially just after the flowers have been set out in the spring and during summer dry spells. Report of the Commons Design Review Committee I PAGE FORTY-NINE I ®y The existing Hick's Yew shrubs, which are overgrown and past their prime, should be replaced in the planters with more compact and shorter evergreen varieties. ggAdditional efforts should be made to interest community groups (especially garden clubs) in participating in an adopt-a-planter program. oa • • ■ I I'7 1 I 1 I I I i PAGE FIFTY I Renewing the Design of the Ithaca Commons I _ --"\N.4.2_,............■■••••••••■•• •■•••••■•• a-) ..," __ azIrY $ (._ ee...AzO'. _5 ' (A,1&/ Z- 61,,----12- -.C- ALt_71---//L An (2Y---( seAyt yl yk7Za -1,7 ._. U _,.._,e_g 5 6 ,., i Cc- - t C.,--,- 4e 0/_i scc (-:;?-- — Po --)7L./-2,ea_ vt difg-w-'rr -7,A5-e7 . c" --1 °14.4- %-v-x- s c c,L,eio 7-vvv-- eu4- nA_ (-civt,t..- "L-- -'Lo - 57 rY-°er-cptAAA . e1 > - - . A P 7 ,,,,A.J24A- c&-L.,21._ kc.c.f . a;ci-e.c E', ( ■.... , , � __ __ __ / - _ -. .. u _ _ . _ __ __ ___ _.. `ii ) vi-V/0--; , (rc--. r,(.._ r,A.,,,-/-'1A--0 '1----"2 - AAA i-v-' C.AA-w1A--74';-- 41) _, , , O . --- r\i-A4) -(..; -51 -L-rx - „.. .1(...„..„,---Lciv----)- An.,2. -4--v-- a/vL-c/f- 6,1-4---tA-/-A -"f- S �� 6/10A1 AA-01A---T *-vvj- 6(LA.-- ------66,,(7021.- C,, — ,,,7 Ji)L t,47,`65-c 4 i -?i2 . -HA S ) „ w�At51 _ y- ' €2.4er-' t 4, z 4)vt,---,-1. 0_ 4j---e--. 4/-"re: 6!Ai 61.6 - .5"-(A.5-0/1 , (cvu-17,4, 4/2 i/t, 't s•e ,1--- (Ic ,,t,AX A(5 erv(A(ji. alv /h' (OM iv-e<7\_p_ _CES ri\D (c1._ &10-e,*11116AN9 )- Ue-AA/?r ' -va__ dix(i r 6,05,/,./. ../)--). u \--, Alr7 vi.A Ill.-mot ) 4-LLt"L (�� `51Th/7/24- S / C1 -U /t-'a J ( v"Vl 4 -Ate 6 GL✓(-vv-L.c11.7, S i � � e 0-75-1) `{ cam S �1'`--k —1:`-2 (7/A- J� ` 1 ,..., F0 vik, - ,,, t,,,6.,(' CC k-- ' Ficio— c‘ P 4 : r �% ,1 9 ii ;fs5 �� z . ."-14,63L.' -- ,t, (01„_ , a(t'L. ‘.7(1/\41 v c -- ,vk_. i__-t,ii n - ; r .(„ ; -0--ve_AAA-4.- -e5 10t5i, ass . ` 'ea f .., D-k,/ -(,- ,c,,\,s, ._ 172,e, ctlea -u_a u