HomeMy WebLinkAboutSave Stewart Park - Citizens to Save Stewart Park 1986 I
SAVE STEWART PARK
A Compilation of Statements, Letters, Suggestions, Opinions
Articles and More by Citizens to Save Stewart Park and Others
i
ff M • sM.
"h c'
iJ
'IiuplP'
Citizens to Save Stewart Park
2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, N.Y.
November,1986
CITIZENS TO SAVE STEWART PARK
Compilation of Statements, Letters, Opinions, Articles
About Proposed Restructuring of Stewart Park
I Suggestions and Opinions from Members and Friends of Citizens to
Save Stewart Park about Saving Stewart Park P. ►
II Letters Sent to CSSP and to the Mayor and Common Council about
Proposed Restructuring of Stewart Park P 25'
III Letters and Articles Published in Local Newspapers about Proposed
Restructuring of Stewart Park and Associated Matters P-44
IV Citizens to Save Stewart Park Statements
1 . Statement of Position, July 1986 P- 70
2. Petition P. 7-1
3. Statement made to the Mayor and Common Council , August 6, 198E p-76
4. Statement to Planning and Development Board, September 23, 1986 p.7 6
5. Statement to the Mayor and Common Council , October 1 ,. 1986 P .7 9
6. One Architect 's View, by Vincent Mulcahy p• 81
7. Analysis of the Data from Trowbridge and Trowbridge p- 83
8. Advertisements p. 9 0
THE BASIC POSITION OF CITIZENS TO SAVE STEWART PARK IS THAT STEWART PARK
SHOULD NOT BE REDESIGNED BUT THAT EXISTING BUILDINGS, ROADS, LAND-
SCAPING AND OTHER FACILITIES IN THE PARK SHOULD BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED,
PRESERVED AND RESTORED.
2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, New York November 1986
i
I
SUGG.iMIONS AND OPINIONS ABOUT SAVING STEWART PARK.
FROM MEMBERS AND FRIENDS OF CITIZENS TO SAVE, STEWART PARK
z
C 0 R N E L
ARC HI T C
R E
August 12, 1986
It is difficult to understand the imagined need to make drastic changes
in Stewart Park. Considering the inexhaustible demand for public money,
it seems frivolous to propose unnecessary and insensitive alterations
to one of Ithaca's great resources.
As my children were growing up in Ithaca, Stewart Park was a favorite
and convenient place where my family enjoyed picnics, birthday parties,
the merry-go-round, and the many activities the park makes possible.
More importantly, we all grew attached to the place itself, the special
way it links the town, the hills and the lake, and to the rituals of driving
slowly around "the loop" with out-of-town visitors, and sitting or walking
by the water and feeling the full sweep of the lake and hills unencumbered
and grand in scale.
The quality of Stewart Park is never really to be measured by the number
of cars parked (certainly not along the shoreline) or by artificially imposed
beauty marks like mounds and islands that trivialize or destroy the
integrity of the glacial landscape.
The proposed development seems to assume that the park is now
inefficient, boring and out-of-date. It is none of these. Contrived charm
dates itself as old Stewart Park will never be dated.
Who has determined that anything more than careful restoration and
maintenance is needed or desirable? Minor improvements are certainly
possible, but the kind of wholesale imposition proposed is inappropriate
and excessively expensive. As a twenty-four year resident of Ithaca,
I request that Stewart Park not be cluttered up in the name of
improvement.
John P. haw
Professor of Architecture
Cornell University
CORNELL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE, ART, AND PLANNING, DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE. 143 EAST SIBLEY HALL, ITHACA. NEW YORK 14853 607/255-523
3
CR0 RTN �E LR E
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN
FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF STEWART PARK
There are three things that I think make Stewart Park work: it is an
unselfconscious people's park in an area blessed by great natural, but
manicured, parks; it is at the confluence of exceptional near, middle
and far views; and it has a petina of fanciful old structures and mature
trees. It would be easy to disturb these delicate features by even a few
ill-considered improvements. The proposed plan would position an island,
a pier, a new shore line, a promenade, parking, earth berms and young
plantings in just such a way as to irrevocably destroy all three features.
Why sacrifice an irreplaceable resource on the altar of Access and Parking?
Arch Mackenzie
Associate Professor of Architecture
Cornell University
CORNELL UNIVERSITY,COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE,ART,AND PLANNING,DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE,143 EAST SIBLEY HALL, ITHACA,NEW YORK 14853 607/256-523
C0 RN E L E
R T C R
COA;CER2iIitiG STEWART PARK
717e r4racle of Stet-)art Pare. is its very helm=. For r-.ost of the century :t has
been reasonal:ly maintained and rot, it stares, whole ane complete, within reach
of the milleniur. it has become a Past within the present, an envial-.le
conrition in whicn to enp.ape the future.
Stewart Park is a delicate balance of lawn , trees, and buiidir,^s. Anything
clone to it must be dor:e with understaneing, sensitivity, and inordirate care.
To 1•uzzsat, its trees, bulldoze its greer.steard, and run asphalt over the
re:^gins, is to brutalize this fray-Ile terrain..
It will never be possible to provide "sufficient" space for cars Inc: pickups
and motorcycles in the park: the core space provided, tl!e more required. The
present arranCement works well by distributin- parkin, along t1-:e roac'. If
vehicles are pernitte6 to consur,:e the park, the very reason fcr traveling;
there will gave var•iShed. ."be success of the present arrar,,er-.ent is 1-est
ackr.owledced by letting it continue to succeed.
Stewart Park needs care not upheaval , it requires understanding rot design
pyrotechnics. The park will respond to a gentle touch with dignity, grace, and
life. Let it he!
. s{;`
A-
Cl-r-istian F. Ctto, Proressor
CORNELL UNIVERSITY,COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE,ART,AND PLANNING,DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE,143 EAST SIBLEY HALL, ITHACA.NEW YORK 14853 607/256-522
S
A Statement on Stewart Park
Kristen Schaffer , graduate student Department Architecture , Cornell
In nineteenth century America architects , writers ,
painters and other artists lamented the lack of a national
American style in their respective arts. This was not the case ,
however, in landscape design. The American public parks of the
late nineteenth century were recognized as the appropriate
expression of American needs , the suitable solution to the
problem of park design. If this country trailed Western Europe
in the more elite arts , the United States was a world leader in
providing a model for the public park in a democratic country.
An authentic American form had been found.
This success was not just an artistic one. The form
was right because it expressed a set of communally held beliefs ,
hopes and expectations. It was not an empty formal display, but
a sincere representation of social values. It responded to the
concept that every American had the right to the opportunity for
improvement, and that beneficial contact with nature was one such
opportunity. It was the physical manifestation of the idea that
as the individual improves , so does society.
Ithaca is extremely fortunate to have an example of this
type of park; and the most glorious thing about Stewart Park is
that it still works in the way it was intended! It refreshed us ,
consoles us , offers us refuge and buoys our hopes. Its graciousnes1c
elevates our sense of ourselves and probably our behavior. It
encourages us to maintain, to reaffirm the social contract that is
the glue of our diverse American society.
The proposed master plan offers to destroy this park
for us , and to replace it with today's trend in park design. Other
parks , notably Cass Park, might benefit from the design gimmicks
offered in the plan, but Stewart Park needs no such thing.. We
already have in Stewart Park, a park that nicely accommodates
familiies and groups of friends. We have a park of an appropriate
scale and arrangement for the lone thinker, the shore walker, the
swing sitter. It is a contemplative park that welcomes the couple
or the two or three friends who go there to be together.
We have in Stewart Park a park that speaks to the
individual spirit and the communal good. It is a park whose design
grew out of and responded to social values that still resonate
within our community. We need to preserve and maintain Stewart Par:
in the same way we need to preserve and maintain the values it
represents.
Stewart Park
The continuity of the ground plane unifies the whole areal
and relates it to the surface of the lake. Substantial
modification of the typography would impair this
spaciousness.
The dispersed parking that now exists is fine . It is not
necessary to enclose it in berms and group it together in
large areas.
Charles Pearman
Professor of Architecture
Cornell University
7
We don' t want to lose a vernacular quality about our resources
in Ithaca including Stewart Park. Please don' t make the
park look like any other park in the country. There is
something unique about a park at the end of a ¢0 mile lake.
Please don' t lose that quality.
Leonard Mirin
Associate Professor of Landscape .Architecture
Cornell University
O
Don' t replace the playground equipment -- repair it.
Vincent Mulcahy
Assistant Professor of architecture
.ornell Univ-ersity
I
CITIZENS TO SAVE STEWART PARK
We urge proper maintenance , preservation and restoration of
existing buildings , roads , landscaping and other facilities
in the park.
Items which should be given immediate attention
City forester hired , pruneand feed trees
restrooms renovated
shoreline cleaned up, most especially the swimming ramp
duckpond cleaned up, walkway tidied and new railing put up
tennis courts renovated
speedbumps and other techniques to slow cars be installed -
delineate a bike lane
playground sand boxes be filled with sand, all equipment be
renovated but not replaced
pavilions , bathhouse and boathouse restored
wooden seats for swingbench at lake shore
lightfixtures ahos&n to relate better to park design --
increase electric outlets (for ocassions such as the
Ithaca Festival and concerts)
l0
RESTORATION AND DESIGN CONSULTANTS �
112 "'. MARSHALL ST., ITHA( A, INA. 14850 • 607-273-5796
COPY S
RiGN
Essential Features of Stewart Park that Should NOT Be Changed
*The existing vehicular circulation and parking arrangements.
*The existing openess and flatness of the Dark terrain and vistas.
*The flexibility of the park to accomodate a variety of uses , i.e .
elderly people , families , children, individuals , small groups ,
large groups , etc. without specifically designating these areas
in the park.
Specific Changes that Should NOT Be made
*Allowing the Chamber of Commerce Building or any additional
buildings to be built in or adjacent to park property.
*Introduction of new playground equipment, additional park
lighting, "contemporary" park furniture , or artifical islands ,
promenades or extensions.
Maintenance-Related Work that Should Be Done
Pavilions : the park pavilions which are an integral part of the
park are in deplorable condition and will require extensive work
just to stabilize them. Prior to beginning this work decisions ,
based on historic research, must be made as to what features , such
as verandas on the boathouse , should be reconstructed and to what
period are the buildings going to be restored. The use of these
buildings should not be significantly changed (other than to remove
the DPW maintenance facility) . The introduction of a silent film
museum or restaurant would greatly increase park traffic and there
is an on-going need for the kind of informal gathering space that
these pavilions can provide .
Duck Pond: Dredge and provide for the circulation and cleaning of
water if it is retained.
Trees and Shrubs : A year-round fertilizing and pruning schedule
should be developed and followed.
Lake Edge : Stabilize with large boulders and rocks which will
provide a more natural effect than the wire and rock solution along
the inlet.
Restrooms: Provide new facilities in existing buildings. Additions
should harmonize with existing structure .
Remove DPW Maintenance facility from the park.
Screen with evergreens the elevated section on Route 13 that can be
seen and heard from the park.
� l
Please leave roadways and parking areas as they are.
They are ideal for older people and handicapped people and
parents with children and winter walk�rr and ideal for the
thousands who love to drive through the park or to sit in
their cars looking at the lake .
Please leave the duckpond as it is. It is an
important tradition for many, many families. The fence
and path alound it should be repaired.
Please leave the rocky shoreline as it is. Children
love to climb on the rock and feed the ducks from the rocks
and many, many like to sit on the rock. Something should be
done to tidy up the old swimming ramp.
Walter Slatoff
23 Renwick Heights Road
Ithaca, N.Y.
12
I do not want to see anything changed in Stewart
Park. In fact, I would like to see the bank along the creek
restored and the gabions removed. I would like to have the
zoo put back again.
Katherine Lilley
108 Cascadilla Park
Ithaca, N.Y.
13
from: Rosalind Grippi
423 Bast Seneca Street, Ithaca
I join with those who say "We do not want Stewart Park redesigned. Restore
the Park; preserve it; maintain it; protect its beauty."
Don't change the present traffic pattern and parking.
Presently parking is diffuse. Upon entering the Park,and from any parking
spot, the visitor's attention is immediately oriented to the promise and
beauty of the Park.
With parking lots this would not be the experience. Parking lots make the
presence of cars more conspicuous. One's first destination is a parking lot.
Parking lots are sites in themselves. In attempting to conceal parking
lots behind man-made mounds and vegetation, the Neiderkorn plan acknowledges
this.
Parking lots create unpleasant, if not unhealthy, mini-climates; mounds
will likely increase this unpleasantness. Not only cars, but also people,
will be hedged in , however temporary.
Parking lots multiply themselves. They create the need for more parking lots.
BEWARE THE FECUNDITY 01r PARKING LOTS:DO NOT LET THEM INTO THE PARK. Already
(in the Neiderkorn Plan) one parking lot (at the "Overlook") has absorbed
lake frontage, replacing green lawn with a concrete expanse close to the
water's edge.
In the present arrangementjparking makes lake viewing or sunset watching
accessible to many persons on a regular basis, and to nearly every park-goer
on occasion. Thus the present parking, like the present roadway Cwhich sometimes
serves as a running track) , contributes positively to the recreational
possibilities of the Park. By contrast, the parking lots proposed in the
plan serve nothing but the storage of cars. The man-made mounds that screen
the cars from view also designate large areas robbed from recreational use.
�4
In the 25 years I have lived i n Ithaca and used Stewart Park , I
have always appreciated the parka 's ability to absorb large
numbers of people without seeming crowded . Even on major
holidays, there seems to be enough room for everybody. Without
any formal structuring , the park: provides room for those who
want to play active games and those who just want to picnic . I
believe it seems uncrowded because it has large, grassy open
spaces; these open spaces also provide lovely vistas in manly
directions. It would be a crime if any of these grassy spaces
were turned into parking lots. There are plenty of parking lota
to blot the landscape in all the stopping centers: lets keep ti-em
out of our parkas. If the city wishes to spend money in Stewart
Park: , they should modernize and maintain the rest room, .
Judith Halliday
l$'
Please do not obstruct the open vistas in all directions
with plantings of bushes and trees. One of the great beauties
both aesthetically and emotionally of Stewart Park is the
sweeping vistas in all directions -- north up the lake to
Lansing, west across the lake and Fall Creek to the opposite
hills and the golf courxe , up Fall Creek and from the lake
back to the Bird Sanctuary (to the East is now cut short by
the large obtrustive Youth Bureau Building. ) and generally
in all directions within the park so that one can see
people walking, playing tennis , picnicing etc.
Please do not cut up the marvelous open expanses
of green lawns with plantings or other attemps to delineate
or segmentize the park into many different little activity
areas. It is really nice now to be able to choose where
one wants to picnic , or play frisbee , or just sit and be
quiet. Please don' t try and decide for us exactly where
we should do things. Please leave us our present freedom of
movement.
Please no promenade and lighting along shorefront.
Such lighting can be dangerous I think. If one is in the light
the potential mugger can hide in the dark. Also the satisfying
experience of whatching the sunset and dusk and then dark approach
would be very much lessened by artificial lighting.
Please leave the roads and the parking areas as they
are presently laid out. They work so very well. Repair them
of course. No new parking lots which with the roads removed
will give us less parking than now. Repair present roads
Please clean up the shorefront and remove those
awful gabions from Fall Creek. The old swimming ramp should
be cleaned once a year. (One backhoe and two men for one
day is not that expensive . )
Doria Higgins
2 Hillcrest Drive
Ithaca, N.Y.
1 �
er
LP
�- LIO
k Q s t-V-2-
CA-
OOAV--�
IAV s
i -7
PLEASE DO NOT ALTER STEWART PARK
Comments submitted by Sally Grubb
112 Birchwood Drive
Ithaca NY 14850
Member Citizens to Sage Stewart Park
Co-ordinator Ithaca Festival 1986
Member International Hospitality Committee
Member NE PTA - Co-ordinator Afterschool Enrichment Program
One time coordinator Nobel Folk Dance, and VISIT volunteer
The Comments given below are my own but my feelings for
Stewart Park have necessarily been affected by by my involvement
with the above mentioned organisations .
1 . Stewart. Park is a beautiful Park and should not be altered
in any way. Hills , new plantings , separating of
different activity areas can only Spoil this beauty.
Restore the buildings , improve the rest rooms . Add
more electrical circuits . Clean up the lake water
BUT PLEASE DO NOT ALTER THE PARK IN ANY WAY .
2 . Stewart Park is safe because it is open there are no
areas where muggers or child molesters can hide. i
would like to take my dogthere but I am SAFE WITHOUT
HIM.
3 . Stewart Park is an ideal place for family gatherings ,
Works outings , Group picnics . Everyone can be together
but separate . One can join a club picnic at the small
pavilion, the children can play safely in the play area
or by the Lake shore, in sight and sound but not taking
one from the picnic, and teenagers can play ball or
listen to the radio apart but still with the family.
Artificial hills and additional plantings would stop
this . THE PARK DOES NOT NEED TO BE ALTERED TO BE USED
TO FULL CAPACITY .
4. The alterations proposed in the master Plan would ruin
the Park for events such as July 4th - a lit promenade
would compete with the flares and spoil their effect .
The Park is at present ideal for the Ithaca Festival
after July 4th Fireworks the best attended event in
Ithaca. All that is needed is additional electrical
services and better bathrooms . No matter what is
done to the roads Stewart Park will never be able to
provide adequate parking forthe Festival . DO NOT
ALTER THE PARK FOR LARGE EVENTS .
18
5 . The roads and lineal parking are ideal in Stewart Park,
making the park safe and accessible to everyone for a
5 minute visit or an all day picnic . PLEASE DO NOT
ALTER THE ROADS AND ADD LARGE PARKING LOTS - THIS CAN
ONLY MAKE THE PARK LESS ACCESSIBLE LESS ATTRAC�T�IVE AND
ULTIMATELY MUCH LESS SAFE . ar( 6Ll '�
Additional comments amplifying these are given below.
1 . Stewart Park is a very beautiful City Park depicting
some of the most attractive features of life in Ithaca,
namely a wonderful view of the Lake and the surrounding
hills without obstruction or hindrance, and a close
proximity with nature in the bird sanctuary, and also
fine architecture in the form of the Pavilion and
Boat house . Only maintenance and restoration of buildings
can improve on this . Alterations of any sort would only
spoil the Park .
2 . Stewart Park must be the safest park anywhere and is
one of the safest public places in Ithaca. It was
the first place I went to in Ithaca on my own and even
now when my children are in elementary school is the
only park I feel safe in without my dog . There is
always someone else in the park, to call to if help were
needed, and it is such an open area there are no areas
where a child or woman could easily be molested without
someone seeing or hearing.
3 . Stewart Park is an ideal place for group gatherings
public events such as Bar-Br Ques and the Ithaca Festival .
Club picnics can take place at the small pavilion (or
large pavilion for larger groups) and because of the open
nature of the park and lack of plantings screening the
areas of activi , one can enjoy an adult party while
children play on the playground or by the lake shore
within sight and sound.
4. People flock to the Park for Bar-B-Ques find somewhere to
park, eat or go home with their chicken, and still there
is space for other users to play ball, stroll or sit by the
Lake Shore, play in the playground area, without being
disturbed by the Bar-B-Que crowds . July 4th brings
thousands of people to the Lake shore to watch the flares
and fireworks from the surrounding hills - a spectacular
event and we have always found parking space.
The Ithaca Festival brings crowds to the Festival's favorite
site, with people merely complaining they have to walk
so far from performing site to performing site and why
wont we let them drive . The Festival would benefit
from better electrical services but other alterations
would only detract from the Park .
5 . The Road system in the park seems ideal to me . As one
drives down Route 13 one sees the Willows along the shoreline
inviting one to join them and say "who cares about the time -
anyway I ' ve got 5 minutes to spare" . As one swings off,
Route 13 the merrygoround comes into view and yes it is
working today so 5 minutes becomes 10, but only ten
because I can park by the maintenance building . On other
days I can park by the shore while the children chase ducks
and pick up sticks and have fun. Dont change thesbreline
its not safe along Fall Creek now small children are not
safe playing on the rip rap . On a cold day I dont
even have to get out of the car to enjoy the view, let
the children play .
6 . The road side parkirp in Stewart Park is safer than in a
large parking lot . Children very quickly learn not to
run across roads and to look left and right before going
straight across . But how do you protect a child from the
driver who backs out of a space without looking to see who
is walking thru the park . How do you protect a child who
is too small to be seen by the driver who does use his
reversing mirror . I never let my children walk alone
thru a parking lot but I let them cross the Stewart
Park roads on their own.
�d
WHAT I LIKE ABOUT STEWART PARK, AND WHAT I WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE
CHANGED
VISTAS
I love Stewart Park's many vistas. The views of the lake come
to mind first, of course , they are lovely the way they are. I
would not like to see an attificial "island" created in front of the
shoreline, because this would create an unnatural interruption of
the views of the lake and of the east and west shores. I emphasize
"views" because the lake-oriented vistas are qualitatively different
depen3ing on where one is standing within the park or along the park's
shore.
Similarly, I value the vistas of the trees of the bird sanctuary
and of the wetland north of the golf course. In fact, virtually all
the views one is afforded of portions of the park itself and of the
surrounding greenspace are most pleasant (the only exceptions being
the views that contain the Youth Bureau building) . There is definitely
an "open vista" quality about the park, which I believe would be
ruined if man-made hillocks or berms were created in a misguided
attempt "to relieve the flatness of the terrain. "
LAKE SHORE
Although I understand that the present-day shoreline of Stewart
Park has been altered by humans over the years, it still retains . a
very natural, "unselfconscious" character that is at once inviting
and soothing in its simplicity. The willow trees that were indeed
planted by humans add to and enhance the low-key attractiveness of
the lake shore. I would hate to see any of these willow trees cut
down, and I would hate to see a promenade or walkway imposed upon the
present shoreline. A lighted, demarcated promenade would create a
kind of mini-boardwalk effect that we simply do not need. I even
mistrust the idea (in the Master Plan) of adding to the shoreline and
thereby increasing the acreage of Stewart Park in its northwestern
section. To do so would involve a great deal of fill in a rather
large-scale operation. Nay suspicion is that it would diminish the
unspoiled, unimposing quality of the present lake shore.
LANDSCAPE OPENNESS AND UNSTRUCTURED CHARACTER
At present, there is a feeling of freedom of movement and open-
ness of space in the park play area and picnic areas. There is an
unstructured quality to the park that I very much appreciate. Sure,
there are picnic tables and benches, play equipment and pavilions,
but user activities are not narrowly programmed or forced into strict-
ly demarcated areas. I would certainly not like to see the park re-
designed with plantings and such that would insistantly delineated
activity areas and screen these areas off from each other.
DUCH POND
I do not want the duck pond to be eliminated! ! !
2 24
ROAD SYSTE14
The loop road is one of the great advantages of the park, along
with the dead-end road leading to the large pavilion. This road
system enables old and handicapped people to enjoy the lake shore
and most all areas of the park without undue effort or inconvenience.
Even for the rest of us it is most advantageous. For example, on a
beautiful yet cold, blustery day we can still drive right up to the
shore and enjoy the views, even if we might not wish to get out for
very long or feed the ducks or have a picnic.
The value of the present road system was brought home to me in
a personal way quite recently. Icy sister and a friend had driven to
Ithaca for a very brief visit. Unfortunately, my sister has been
suffering recently from a bad case of swelling around her ankles.
While it is not too uncomfortable for her to sit in a car and drive,
it is painful for her to do much walking. Her friend had never been
to Ithaca before, and my sister has not visited Ithaca very often in
the past twenty years. Needless to say, she and her friend wanted to
take something of a tour of the area, even if it had to be brief and
mostly car-bound. Nay sister's leg problems were such that she did not
even wish to get out of the car to walk the necessary few yards to
view Ithaca Falls. But in Stewart Park, she was able fully to enjoy
the lake shore, the willow trees, the lake and park vistas, the duck
pond and so on, thanks to the park's road system. We parked the car
at several different spots in the park, and while the rest of us got
out and took photographs and watched as two popular individuals fed
bread crumbs to multitudes of ducks and seagulls under the willow
trees west of the pavilion, my sister was falling in love with Stewart
Park without ever getting out of the carl
�' Joel Rabinowitz
2Z
T (oLGACTEp f4 t4-ko5T 3o n Ac APR fvk
P�Tt
7-lb tJ �f� �Ylf�`�o T-
rt,)AA�- 7-t> 9-.A
�tf � A/�1�E2 flR� �► ASl�,2 �Q
�� �y LlF�• �1/�/ZyniyE" �iG,✓�j -- i�/ F�lc� �°�oP�
C14 pti r o VF- io RAD 14 sKl�6 'Or
16�,Pl- off, D %o Sij UtlD�/z
w l u��✓ s BRA t/ ,3 l/1��D z�QS 1r1H g
''-D S�VF %114-7- 64Re- /T LJovoj> &,4eg� 41 15� S16IC
rl rci 7�lPi«L � �t�.c�r was "w#y -t{E'? k1,4A1
P,eOYP
d > IF-bPr-�
(c .PN��_ P,�oFFS s ots v (o vac) `Lt,ellf
�pwN �5 So 08t!/DtJSL� 4614��ST
Laurie Conrad
t � C- ��� Y.Crc,� �: #
1G-Vlc
CK
'��U�JC?S� ,
'
C; ���� t c ���a LT 4,z, (Gc-
C� a\\ G V
WG� � Et, Ck)c,\e CAA cy-�
13 4v-w As 9012f{
tilltaca,�J.�. ��55�
0d. b, tasb 24.
ovo*J
�ayedotp� -IVY3caess'fu��k_ *at fK � wonderfut? arravged
%#� icmke4qd evot onaol� * wq
*Ib4 cNe wb h pW,. ,ar� p&4ee ar faivV iVxwkr N =;k -the
sev�G& S*ni� pm weeds. OA-the saw VtofC) PL6W b no{- Chame fly IMP,
�su�le dries-NKO�gh-tl�p�,
N-�c lako, �r°uqhtle, 9v'ltyPmWd'"'q
eviq {{ tKeldes,U cav, be svckajqin i�sel�. -�OSe - avnnoY' y
walk eas(y Uloq r\86 a sentc of okx-
areadarks. die Ia# of-Me Toads and �Vtir� T makes tie Park
9tLessable� anYoM,ano1w (rainorshim), MAng if a po��c irk in�t�v
2 5".
II
LETTERS SENT TO CSSP AND TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL
ABOUT THE PROPOSED RESTRUCTURING OF STEWART PARK
26
w CI f� c_s (b sffiC XX -r pcL4
LOUIS R. FENDRICK
1481 TRUMANSBURG ROAD
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
i
STOP altering Stewart Park. As life-long
residents, we say leave our park alone. ..
iGzkC�
27
28
Fred's Shooting Service
114 1RADELL ROAD
FFL# 16.08203 1THACA. NEW YORK 14850
Guns -Accessories- Custom Ammunitio:l
FFl i +6-06347
FRED BONVE,N . PHONE 607/272.8312
7/ /7 /B&
e'r/Z ZH5 r o yvc yr&"UgQr t—Z)FaX
a H) JL LO-iek.Sr)�R, Vt
To wHor► I,r r-1 j7 0-a wcp.4.x(;
S 1.. >ti u Ll r_. f (t E 7-6 9t 6 t 44Z rj r o
N/Or#F- Q. P Z� b P06-NT 175 w"-z LL ly S ui l F'L w� L L ldL Sd
�Nr k'Tlow ,Nly Horo T'#E �� �' cPZ"i�, tJ&, "'BE02 Ls
raFti 2u►J �TIt�9CA o��2.AT�. .L TNiNK ,T woos-� � o M°2E
"efT P42 ES-Se-102,v 771�R, .. To "J hl Cc�NN��L•.
I9,Aryrtl146- Sr',Ewr? r /�- t3 - N >~e�)s A7.0
-� IFN X14 w14F,.>+CHRIR, (SINCE lRGs6, -- r1E o
n1br�R, v£, 6� o%(L/ r�o NA3�ryr�o �Jc�r1R7 ME C3 M
T'iM� f-m 2 7-)VI5 w0R7-lYW4tjE )v,JIT. - PH,0t l*- dry I-)- S Z 7C.
", ,zRcN Mz q �73o m13 sn�yr�.►�
THi XK Ti�� L iIl 17d A' u,2_ S'y�u�. t� �c E/1-lc,,.J 1' -A�
Cz, r Co D z w p n1 4� m P— D J%b TYjE
T111 N9 27'�a 4-6, 1 T. ;r#r IT R G F_12. A
L. zr Al) k,1,16 t v wyAr 3 e1fN � o rd I,z.���.
��sT
July 17, 1986
Mayor John Guttenberger
City Hall
Ithaca, New York 14850
Dear Mayor Guttenberger:
Although I do not presently live in the city
of Ithaca, I was born and raised downtown
and lived in the city for 22 years. However,
I always go to Stewart Park.
I am very concerned about this proposed
"improvement" to Stewart Park, one of my
very favorite places. The beauty of
the park has delighted thousands of people
for many years. Take down the willow
trees? I remember when they were planted--
it was a very good idea then and still
is because they provide a lovely bit of
shade to sit under while gazing out onto
the lake. I feel that, since they do not
surround the entire end of the lake, that
those who feel they are a barrier should
simply move elsewhere to look at the lake.
Also, one of the assets of the park is
it's flatness. Mothers, myself included,
can safely watch their children from a
distance. Creating "rolling hills" would
be disasterous. After all, people who
have trouble navigating uneven ground
ELLIIfG $FOR? because of leg problems, wheelchairs, etc,
PQA would not be able to enjoy the park as they
�� �" 1 now do.
Surely this money can be better spent to
help PEOPLE. . .I know that the city is not
hard up to find people or organizations in
# need of cash. How about improving day care?
S Help for pregnant teens? More funds for those
who work with abused children or battered wives?
There is an old saying that goes, "If it ain't
broke, don't fix it." I feel that this
applies to Stewart Park.
' Please halt this silly plan and put the money
® to use where it is sorely needed.
YOW department Is funt- , .' Sincerely,_ ,
tinning smoothly,so We're
-ioing todreorganize�lt.". Irene Scott
r �_ 461 Sheffield Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
/cc: Citizens to Save Stewart Park
3�
? lyy�a�
Iry
Am It
S
r
w� �
3 �
C ERNS
J.Z�j
32.
�J
� �
_ -_ ___� � /� ��.� ____ _______..� _v .
��-/ � �/
G�
� �'`����
� ��� �-��
_ ��,�.�
__-- /�
�7 , y � � --
• A
� `���
�` .�
r�� J���� �z�
o�
IL
44 rT
A-L,�ry,
v
3S
P.C . Box 8, 10 Union Street
Dryden, N.Y. 13053
September 14, 1986
Mayor John Gutenberger and
Ithaca Common Council C/
City Nall
Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
Dear friends:
As a resident of the county rather than the city,
I have wondered whether it is appropriate for me to
write to you about the Stewart Park controversy,
f have been following in the news with much interest
because the park has Meant a lot to me and my family
over the many ,years we have lived here , __ . We have
always loved it, especially with the stepped-up main-
tenance of recent years, pretty much the way it has
been.
Thus I find myself agreeing with many of the things
that Citizens to Save Stewart Park have been saying.
In the abstract it does seem to make sense to get roads
away from the waterfront, yet in Stewart Park the exist-
ing roads, with very slow traffic, are certainly in-
conspicuous. And they do serve a purpose in allowing
families to bring old people and small children close
to the water without long walks from a distant parking
lot. I have seen numerous elderly couples (or individuals)
on week days park facing the lake and enjoy lunch in
their car or a brief walk near by. The proposed changes
in the road system and parking arrangements would eliminate
all this.
I would certainly hate to see any of the willow row
cut down, or any of the wonderful big, old trees that
might have to be sacrificed for parking lots , etc. The
flatness of the terrain is wonderfully enhanced by all
the nice plantings, and it "belongs" in that location.
I do not find the idea of man-made hills at all attractive.
Thus, if you will allow a vote from outside the
city, mine is for keeping the park as much as possible
like it is.
Sincerely yours,
Martha F. Feraer
36
A � lL , lS �
tv-
8a'6
e Ek. G'
M
31
-f-ld
CA--
14r
cl
VV (ctl�:;tl,�
/� °7 "
�t lkc� W C, rk 38
WIT,111 e
1
3�
age
• a
> p
totp
A—V-,.00 �.e-n.c u..
-- J4�
5r.rtrnber 27, 1966
To the :.:eyes r nd Common Council:
F,cr L:3f cf r: nrccinus cor:.r:itment, I ct-nrot cnmr.�ent in
per .&or �,' the VECtinF for diFcuesion of chenFcs in Stet'-art
Frri. Jef-lEr.. Is one who first visited the park in the
lste twenties and has gone there frequently since I returned
to 11vE here in 1947, I have a special interest in retaining
the epFcifl charFcter of the area.
i?,=Mn7 a pe.vel , lighted walkway alone the lsLe F9ae
koulf deEtrcy the present delightful inforTrelity of the
1Fi-erhore with its uninterrurted Preen expvnsc to the shore
onl the row cf willows EE shade. The shoreline curve is e
Ee; cirlyy l,lee in(- when views=d FE ore :river 3^rn Route 13.
r7 F; , c 9: n%` cut r:ny (-f' thoce willcws.
irlj : ir. - lots l.,itr_ rnn-:rrIc m6unis to r•ttel-Ct to hi'-IF tber.
f,-.T r.ore intrusive th&r the pre S Fnt le,E conCcr-
,_ � rr,' f 1sc lope f1EVible . Tr.r'th *-our?s
tL•r I ==')r cf r,-ice? or tl rrFr ..
:-e is thc.t t�'e egfeEtc-d '�uFl,,n is b! sE-f
T, ? i'• f ' cr. tl, -C;iods Of mexjrur.• use - weel'Fr 3F rn,' weci -
i^ in srm—,r-r - t.ith no coneidrrrti^n ^f Uf=CrB
rf-riols of lees corcentriJen use - r fuii
i:. 'it' of c i'� t�E trrr plus weEi..dt ;_ durin'' 'S'l:'ir'cr.
l a r4 I on, ^r• p^rh' elcee to the le're t, �,r., c? f roe:
c . �rncrt �r obecrve wir,tcrir:g fI^cks of
A,.1^1:` , or cmll,' nr:E e' i ltincr iri crF ' L cE-r Cr'
�tr fr y ^r eFr s rrin7 d--.v while c
unr.r peens- doin7. Un-- w-)u 11 hal* to e et out �f
rr 7Rt,ter !not•: urco-~fortab) e tee=. V:Ff tnFr.
hcr� on ol',erpponle f=n? the hnniiC?.^O(6 1•:}'O
ir-c? —, rrt :titeeithFr, rut st -)r- r-nl r-n er;.i . _
t :F r c: ;f the 1r i e frnr their cars .
i - e , ^c cue: tinn : :,'orild rclocFtin.- t':r, ter,r.is a •urts
l or_e :,.,t ` on) mean ^uttinc- soi e of the treeE it t're fors Fr
I-oo r.ren to rmlre Epacet for them? i poFFible elte.rnctive
lr_crti-n for the tennis courts world be the city-o::mcF lend
c,,:t -f the rf:ilropl. track inste ed of e?nothEr building there
for trE Cher:ber of Corrrrerce. This would incre-nec the uset,ie
rrr'- Prep if that lr:nd were consilerei part of nark to
be usel for recre£tion.
r1. cossib'lc future _estensicn of Stewfirt iLrl- by using*
dre'-tr^ er-11 to rdl F snit north of the luck perJ Enurr s
r, F ir:- F-V It icn.
LincrreI., rs ,
D;rc,thy McIlrcy
�z
Le C h k ,�---
4
JI
13
o(ix�
e -
4�-Ae�
_,rte
III
LETTERS AND ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN LOCAL NEWSPAPERS ABOUT
PROPOSED RESTRUCTURING OF STEWART PARK & ASSOCIATED MATTERS
} LETTERS 2-3
Who says Stewart Park
needs to be redesigned?
Could someone please tell me
and others of us who think Stewart
Park is a most beautiful and de-
lightful spot -just as it is now —
why the city feels.it needs to be re-
designed?
Peter Trowbridge,.chosen by#he
city to restructure the park,in a re-
cent talk spoke about research by
his firm into park history but he did
not mention what a marvel of de-
sign the park is now. On the most
crowded of days it absorbs cars so
they are never obtrusive and people
so there is never.a Coney Island
feeling of being crowded.
One can drive up almost to the
edge of the lake, park, and in two
steps be on grass. From almost any
spot one can see the lake and lowly-
ing hills, people playing Frisbee,
the hard-rock set lounging against
their cars, church groups having
barbecues, toddlers squealing at
ducks, the old and the amorous sit-
ting in cars enjoying the lake.
The reason the park is such a
popular gathering place for so
many different types of people is, I
think,because of its easy accessibil-
ity, its openness, its lack of being
regimented. I fear "redesigning"
will bring paths to direct our mean-
derings, central asphalt parking
lots(to "hide" the cars) which will
give us the sensation of driving into
Pyramid Mall, and plantings (to
"beautify") which will obstruct
open vistas.
I hate the thought of the present
ease and expansiveness and beauty
of the park being destroyed. In
I hope of preventing this, I suggest
we put up a statue — I will donate
the first $100 toward the cost—to
honor Peter Trowbridge if he will
take another look at Stewart Park,
i recognize how wonderfully de-
signed it is now, and then persuade
the city to leave the park as it is.
To fulfill his contract, Common
Council could have him landscape
the area around the new sewage
plant instead, or some other spot
that needs landscaping.
Doria Hi gins
�
tFiaca
3 t 5 b
butIuw
bim* the the perk alone
I completely agree with Doria
Higgins' letter of May 23. Rede-
signing a park which is'already
great is a waste of the city's time
and taxpayers' money.
Some thought might want to be
put into bringing back the animals
which were hastily removed when
this new scheme emerged. My
grandchildren miss seeing them and
have asked me many times where
they have gone.I am sure that there
are many other children who feel
the same.
The city might also want to think
about replacing the trees which
were cut down, for whatever pur-
pose. Other than that, I believe the
expression "If it ain't broke, don't
fix it" applies. Helen Wheeler
Ithaca
-Stewo Pwk doom I
#00 !gyp be N ned
Asa child growing up in the
area, one of my favorite places to
go was Stewart Park, As a mother,
it is still one of my favorite places,
and definitely my favorite park.
The playground there has the same
-equipment that was there when i
was young and I get a lot of joy see-
ing my child do the same things I
did.
We -have gone to other play-
grounds that have "the latest
thing"in equipment but we always
wind up back at Stewart. Though
Cass Park is nice, the equipment
there is on too large a scale and not
designed for toddlers.
There is a play area at Caroline
School made of the newest in log
equipment. The edges of the logs
are rounded, providing a perfect
opportunity to twist your ankle,
and something that.looks like a
chain trap looks more like a neck
trap. It seems extremely dangerous.
"Newer" isn't always better.
Stewart Park may be old-fashion-
ed, but that is what makes it so at-
tractive to everyone.
Playgrounds aside, Stewart Park
in addition has ducks, swans, a na-
ture trail, and an unsurpassed view
of the lake. The only-complaints
one might have are the volume of
the stereo speakers and the use of
glass containers, leaving behind
broken glass. These items, howev-
er, are not the fault of the park.
Yes,there is plenty to do at Stew-
art Park. That's what makes it
great. And what makes it even bet-
ter is that it's an ideal place to do
nothing at all.
If the city wants to spend money
on the park, they could help fi-
nance a liability insurance policy on
the merry-go-round to keep it oper-
ating. What a loss that would be.
Redesigning Stewart Park seems
a total waste of time and especially
money. There is only one Stewart
Park. To sum it all up, "If it ain't
broke, don't fix it!"
Laura J. McDonald
Brooktondale
f8
Instead of Stewart Park,
spend money on the lake
I have a suggestion for how the
money to renovate Stewart Park,
an already beautiful park,might be
better spent. Why. not use it to
clean up Cayuga Lake?
I have grown dependent on this
majestic body of water, which has
provided me with recreation and
enjoyment all of my life. Last sum-
mer was the first time I was unable
to bring myself to swim in the lake
— it just looked too dirty. I kept
thinking, "It will clean itself up."
Summer came and went, and the
lake quality never improved.
We all know of the benefits de-
rived from the lake. Let's not take
it for granted. Why not spend our
money and energies on seeing that
this great natural resource is pre-
served? Let's watch our children
enjoy it as we have.
Sue Webster
Lansing
unproved'
S tewart Park Should �t be
Don't alter such m an atrec across the
park, which make e walking there
such a pleasure. When one remem-
� the things
bers Baron Hausmann i e re-
J d�.�a ' deli Paris demolished miles of
housing to achieve just such long
•
f and open visual axes as we natural-
users enjoy ly have in Stewart Park,that L'En-
fant saw such axes as highly impor-
By DORIA NMGM -tant parts of his plan for our
Those of us who regularly use country's capital, one wonders why
Stewart Park must take exception f we in Ithaca are spending vast sums
to The Journal's editorial of money to destroy this natural
statement that it has become"more and beautiful characteristic of our
of a car park than a people's park" park.
("Better stewardship at Stewart The Sunday of my investigation I
Park," June 10). counted 324 cars parked and, at a
If ever there was a park that is a most conservative estimate, room
"people's park" enjoyed by many, for 250 more cars. My observation,
( just as it is now,it is Stewart Park. which I think is fairly accurate,
The Sunday after your editorial
appeared—the day of the Kiwanis does not jibe with our planners'as-
barbecue and thus one of the most sertion that the three proposed
highly attended of the year — I parking lots with a total capacity of
made a count of cars parked there, 600 cars will provide 50 percent
of additional parking spaces avail- more space than at present.
able,and I interviewed a number of Furthermore, under present road
groups there about the proposed conditions, parking on the grass
changes in the park layout, focus- (not at all a bad idea on special oc-
ing my questions on the proposed casions such as the Fourth of July)
deletion of most of the present park can provide even more parking
roads, the construction of three spaces, most of which will be lost
parking lots to be hidden by earth when all the roads not leading di-
mounds and the proposed "lighted rectly to the parking lots are remov-
promenade extending the full ed, as is proposed. This also means
sweep of the lakeshore. . .wide that people can not, as they do
enough to allow couples to pass now, drive pleasurably around the
comfortably." park, viewing the lake and human
Every single person I interviewed activities.
expressed consternation and dislike Back in the 50s,noted architectu-
of those proposed changes. ral critic Jane Jacobs wrote an arti-
Everyone I spoke to liked the cle titled,as I remember, '`Whatev-
present parking arrangement, in er became of the comer store?" in
which one's car can be parked near .which she criticized many architects
the area one wants to use.For some `and planners, particularly those in-
this is a desirable convenience, for 4''volved in urban renewal, for not
others a necessity. taking into account the day-to-day
One elderly couple accompanied �ary needs of the human orga-
by a still more aged.parent said they �m (practical, social, emotional,
could not picnic by the lake if they pi'psychological) when they planned
iad to lug their.supplies any dis- handsome, slick, sterile devel-
#.ance. Two young"couples with ba- opments.
bies said a nearby car with child- I It seems to me that our local
caring paraphernalia was why they planners are making just those er-
came to Stewart Park,instead of rors which she enumerated 30 years
going elsewhere. 1 ago, today in Stewart Park.
One of the adolescent hard-rock Finally let me say, in concert
oups seated near their car(and its with those I interviewed, that the
proposal for lighting "the full
radio) saw the changes as an at- sweep of the lake shore"is a dread
tempt to get rid of them.I could re- ful idea and must have been made
assure them on that point at least by those who have not sat by that
by telling them the new plan would almost oceanic Lakeshore watching
et rid of many_of us, young and l sunset oceanic turn r dusk and
alike. As one pendi said be 1slowly
Boeing the plan, "It will destroy the then to dark,and been soothed and
SOlWavailturc olAeV ark." w enriched by that experience.
Higgins, a psychologist at Tomp-
v 10ne -of my cbncern3"Vbbut'the kins County Mental Health Clinic be-
proposed parking.lots hidden by lore her retirement, is a painter and
earth mounds is that the mounds sculptor, lives in the Town of Ithaca
will interfere with the present open and walks regularly in Stewart Park.
SO
iE1`L c �}f c• e a c c a r O v c3 �
_ _
Q 3' '
Au�+ u
cc 0
=t_ u.a. o- E ^ 3wy`ocv.°. .- r-= c= - i
�� a'; ac, >� �o �cc� 3E = ca-� A £ cA . .
dy
'� O 1.. C� V m— f C V rl
� CcrEpvGa«A — pa3N 6 Ceo. ynE ; d5 3 %J VV G�1p
CC Esa �' C EL> ►•�t A yc C CA O > at �wSZw Cc
cc�� aci� d � °6 �3 �° x= csvta" `oo'=u' �cm�`c � i
�+ E� �• `v'°-a� `y4':G A u:= �" > f A E a a a-
v°A � ao >�c=r3gayEv2Yd > �
to C L v v G'C Y G a >,v 6 V u y
�c=-t F 3 os c N �
z E G-`•- E v='� a ee- u 3 t s ► c`-t a
_ yaoc
u A c mo a a .+L d� -
C_a c u c E a c c h > nZ -w-,'
;- ►
w CC > E u u E f > c a o co3 c c �s �'' "c "o `'z
W, G v W-W� cE 3� a, a, Y -�-E-v, a�u u �. r�r U a ,
aca a'
=e _ E
Q. C/� �• c
C/) ry c, c 4ee
c
cin
.O ,..Q = tai A,
3 -a'-=
cid S-.4 r---i sz d " m a
L o Y
G ^r a Cc
u�-
C A
` o � ,
a
r A Cd
O A
C o E 0 0 o a o o to— G—
aZE'+.Y G c .�+•CL"� a G m•�^�9 OZY V ►. >+y4 a
It
� aj c CA. °c°� �� 3sM � c°Z� � °c=at 06 C
to
3GE « � cd� a�ac+ = � aE2co` E= oy
L E °n$c a E o a< > a E ia� �fi
cc
pcc3. ppa, ;tea — a°d 3uuga �_ _ mae_=� y
L GLt� 'a' C` p aZ aC P•.+ N= R._ a CL cd C eJe
0 �;�C.ac67 �=z =>,a° � � oa �" a3y __z_, c33t
V •Ti — .1 _ V —�- _
< a «. tca`, = aaic= 0.0 > ahJe° Oaym `3c c a
%ten Z '°ta� ° �o � - = o
� LC � at L` E= C >,O= a,Y�_ ra.Z'A'OCQ'7�� 6j�
W z >.e o m Y- L 3 03 n a a a e A . ea
r- oft
t:nt►
E - " d = aeE �e._ GCEpa >• a
R Y
E a az E .� c u 3YU a-c a x >` _ w
e1 .C+ L+ZN�N.� paeC6ECt
'ac C.
� G vu � ✓
ear=m �` = a. 3 • •Ge-YUY. c ' °.`= e`e ' _.uc �e
m i y— R L a•c A c �—
E :. a... ., a er.— a .r a .+ ::.Fiiri'.
S�
I g b 6
LETTERS
For the Stewart Park
i they know and love
As a person born and brought up
in Ithaca through my college years,
then away for a period of 8 years,
then back in Ithaca for 18 years and
away again for the -last 15 years,
Stewart Park is the one place that
we have always centered on as be-
ing a wonderful place to visit, no
matter what time of year we get a
chance to get back to Ithaca.
I have traveled from one end of
this country to the other, East and
West, North and South, and Ithaca
is fortunate to have such a beauti-
ful, well-cared-for park. We spent
many a happy time at Stewart Park
when our children were growing up
and now it is one of the first places
our grandchildren want to visit
when we come to Ithaca.
I have not seen any of the plans
for changing Stewart Park, but I
feel very strongly that Stewart Park
should remain as it is right now—a
wonderful place for Ithacans and
their visitors.
Lorraine Hile Copeland
Beaufort, N.C.
I echo my mother's sentiments
C and hope some day to bring my
grandchildren to the Stewart Park I
know and love.
Mary Sue Copeland Barry
Richmond, Va.
Gro-PeUthe P 2,1. t�iBb SZ
Poetry for the Park
A.R.Ammons, Goldwyn Smith
Professor of Poetry at'Cornell and a
leading American poet will give a
Poetry Reading to Benefit Citizens to
Save Stewart Park on Friday, August
22 at 7:30 p.m. The reading will be'
held in.Stewart Park near the large
pavilion. Donations of five dollars (or
more or less)are requested.
G.co\ v�►� Cc 1
►9v Jc v S-I- i ? (?) M6
Poetry reading
to benefit group
A. R. Ammons, the Goldwyn
Smith professor of poetry at Cor-
nell University, will give a poetry
reading Friday for the benefit of
Citizens to Save Stewart Park.
Ranked as a leading American
poet, "Archie" Ammons won the
1973 National Book Award for Po-
etry and a 1981 MacArthur Foun-
dation Grant.
A$S donation is requested from
those attending the 7:30 p.m. read-
ing near the large pavilion in Stew-
art Park.
Proceeds will benefit the citizen's
group,which banded together early
this summer to prevent implemen-
tation of a long-range master plan
proposed by the city for Stewart I
Park.
i xfihacg53
T1 e S
Cui 11 PHER
-LI 2.'71
BY;MIKE RAMBO
Do you think Stewart Park
Should be improved?
1
MEHR&MARY SOROUSHIAN, MATH GEORGE HERSKOWITZ,NYC EDUCA-
DEPT. AT CORNELL, MOTHER: I TOR (who has come to this park now
think it would be very unfortunate to for 20 years):We think it's a jewel just
cut the willows down. I think they're the way it is.We'd be very sad if they
very romantic.The first thing you see made the what they call improve-
when you come into Ithaca is the ments.It would be a civil disaster.It's
willows. perfect the way it is.
`7S
s
JOHN & CATHLEEN GEE, ATTOR- CECIL MALONE, ROOFER: No, to the
NEY, MOTHER: I'm not opposed to willows, but it can stand some im-
change,but I don't like the things they provement.
propose. I like the openness; definite-
ly don't cut the willows.
t
.nv
ELAINE & ARIELLE BONNELL, DAVID MALECKI, TECHNICIAN IN
STATE WORKER: They'll destroy it if AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, &
they cut the willows. I like it just the MAX: What's wrong with it? I like it
way it Is. just the way it is.
1f1TERS -�V A
r
Stewart Park `Savers any time. We urge that the plan be The number of people concerned j
call attack unwarranted rescinded, which will safely rid us with protecting Stewart Park from
k of its drastic impositions, one of the changes proposed in the master
It is a serious matter for a com- the'worst of which is scheduled in plan grows daily and to date thou-
munity when civic-minded citizens the plan for the fall of 1986, and in sands of people have signed our"pe-
are dfliberately discredited by.its its place we urge proper mainte- tition. We have been surprised in
largest newspaper, as occurred in nance, restoration and, rehibilita- collecting signatures at how unin-
! the Ithaca Journal editorial Aug. tion under a separate resolution. formed the community has been
19 when Citizens to Save Stewart What the Journal does not-ac- : about the Niederkorn plan and at
Park were misrepresented and ac- knowledge is that in fact the master how angry and dismayed it is on
E cused of manufacturing untrue plan is being implemented. Items 1- learning about these changes.
` "horror stories." Such an unwar- 5, 7-9, 15, 16, 18, 20 and 22 listed .
.ranted attack hurts'the common on pages 84-91 have either been One question is asked again and
good. started or are completed. These in- again: "Why does the park have to
If the Journal had checked with elude removal of the zoo,construe- be changed?" Can Common Coun-
us, we would have told them that tion of the Youth Bureau and items cil or the Journal give us a valid an-
the "horror stories" are mostly associated with its construction, swer?
founded on items in the "Master new access from Route 34, new
Plan for Improvement of the Stew- sewage line, repair of picnic pavil- If we have done nothing else we
art Park Complex" prepared by ion and stabilization of banks have performed a public service by
Tom Niederkorn and adopted in along Fall Creek — nothing to informing the community about
concept by Common Council Jan. <,quarrel with at this stage, but the the toaster plan. We will continue
2, 1985• point is that they are part of the working to prevent the imposition
The Journal evidently sees these master plan and they are being im- of these drastic changes upon Stew-
items as "untrue" because it thinks plemented. art Park in order to keep it as beau-
a master plan "in concept" means For documentation of the reality tiful and delightful and loved as it
we don't really mean it." To us, of-the "horror stories" concerning is today.
"in 'concept" means exactly what parking lots, willow trees, lighted
the city's request to Niederkorn promenade and roadways we refer Doria Higgins
says: "In sufficient detail to permit to theJ61lowing 4uotes from the Sally Grubb
the subsequent design and imple- master plan itself. Claire Tallman
mentation of individual im- Parking lots (page 18): "Con- Rosalind Grippi
provements." struct three new parking lots direct- Victoria Romanoff
We think Common Council ly accessible from the spine road. . Mary Ellen Buyoucos
adopted the plan because they in- the largest lot will provide over 300 Bettsie Ann Park
tended to implement it (why else spaces in the northeast corner of Joel Rabinowitz
Vincent
adopt it?) and that Peter Trow- the park. . .a 180-to-200 car lot Mulcahy
bridge's "subsequent design" will, near the boathouse will serve the Welter r Slatoff
for Citizens to Save Stewart Park
as stated in a Planning Department western end of the park and a
description, "build upon the exist- smaller lot of about 100 spaces will
ing plan." be located near the'children's play
The Journal also seems to think area."
that the accompanying amendment Willow trees(page 65): "Specific
to the resolution- stipulating that planting recommendations include.
items in the plan cannot be ap- . .elimination of the willow row
proved for implementation without west of the pavilion area. . .(to) re-
further authorization from Com- fleet a differentiation of function.
mon Council,essentially annuls the and allow more informal planting
plan, so that our calling attention treatment. . ."
to it is causing a furor over noth- Lighted promenade (page 24):
ing. We see the master plan as a "Construct a lighted promenade
time bomb ticking away. To wait extending the full sweep df the
until each individual item reappears shoreline."
at Common Council amounts to Drive through (page 17): "Re-
years of constant vigilance and sur- place the present roadway system in
vegilance of council agendas and Stewart Park with a single spine
meetings and Board of Public running. . .along the southern side
Works budgets. of the park where it will be well re-
So We are standing up now to say moved from the lakeshore. . .and
we do not want this plan imposed parking would normally not be Per-
on the park now, piecemeal, or at mitted along it."
&rapcv I n e
Pf V5 z. E3 t Ct
SS
A False Sense of
Security
To the Editor:
The Grapevine story by Some people might
Karl Swisher on the think "concept" means it
Stewart Park master plan is just an idea without
(the Niederkorn plan, future substance, but the
Aug. 14-20) was a good Request for Proposal to
story except for its open- Niederkorn clarifies this:
ing paragraph which "The plan shall consist of
contained misleading in- text and drawings neces-
formation which can sary to explain the fea-
have serious consequen- tures and improvement
ces by lulling the.public in sufficient detail to per-
into a false sense of mit the subsequent
security about proposed design and implementa-
changes at Stewart Park. tion of individual im-
Swisher said, "While proverrients." In other
changes are planned they words, "concept" de-
wilf come one step at a scribes and identifies the
time with an opportunity changes that are to be
for public input." imposed. "Subsequent
The fact is the plan is design" means subse-
being implemented and quent design of those
the public has not been proposed changes not
informed about those im- of something completely
plementations. In fact different.
one item, removal of the What "future author-
zoo, was implemented ization" means in prac-
without knowledge or tical terms is that city
discussion even by Corn- hall can divert citizens
Mon Council much less who want to oppose the
the public. plan by saying to them
Items 1-5, .7-9, 15, 16, "Don't worry—it's all in
18, 20 and 22 listed on the future." The master
pages 84-91 of the plan plan is a time bomb tick-
have either been started ing away, and for the
or implemented. These public who want to op-
include removal of the pose it to have to wait
zoo, construction of the until individual items
Youth'Bureau and items come before Common
associated with its con- Council (some of them
struction, new access hidden in Board of
1 from Route 34, new sew- Public Works budgets)
age line, repair of picnic imposes years of con-
stant vigilance and can
pavilion and stabilization eventually tire all but the
of banks along Fall most determined. Those
Creek. who want to oppose the
These items have not plan should insist that
only' been implemented they be given the right to
but they are right on oppose it now before it is
schedule as also publish- too late.
ed on pages 84-91. Doria Higgins
Confusion lies with
two sources. One is the
word -"concept" in the
resolution adopting the
master plan and the
other lies in an. accom-
panying amendment
which stipulates that
items in the plan cannot
be implemented without
further authorization by
Common Council.
S�
BOTHERED
Two items in recent local news bother
me.We're planning to spend$6.6 million
to "improve" Stewart Park, and we're
refusing to spend a mere $140,000 to
repair the County Home.
We need a place to care for the people
who live in the County Home and where
else can we find such good facilities to
perform this sevice and at such a low
cost? The big expense in running it was
the farm operation. Why don't we just
discontinue that operation?
As to Stewart Park-I have over 60
years' recollections of the park as you
might say "through thick and thin" and
it has never looked better and the
construction along Fall Creek is a great
improvement. Those in charge are to be
complimented. Some housekeeping may
be the order of the day. Clean up the
children's playground, build better
bathroom facilities. Young parents today
need a place to share time with their
children and Stewart Park provides a
beautiful place.
To those who attended the meeting on
Stewart Park at City Hall it ws apparent
the audience likes Stewart Park the way
it is.Why should we spend$5.6 million to
change it? —Dorothy Evans
Ithaca
S7
'LET= Ruts dot _YKr5
A C rvi 5. Mo uns portent, though, we
want the park to remain as it is be-
S%wart P ruftered cause we love it the way it is— its
We'd like to add our voices to simplicity, its ease of access, its re-
those which have been arguing so laxed and relaxing loveliness. It is a
eloquently against tampering with remarkably hospitable and com-
Stewart Park and give some of our fortable place for many people and
reasons for doing so,especially our for many sorts of people.
reasons for wanting to retain the We think this has come about
present roadways and parking largely because it is such an open
m,� unpretentious place, one that has
1. As presently laid out the park evolved through time and usage,as
is especially comfortable for elderly opposed to a showplace, however
and handicapped people. They are well-intended, designed and man-
able to park in such a way as to
look at the lake or the sunsets or icured to reflect some abstract ide-
the children playing without leav- als, or committee compromises, or
ing their cars. Or they can get out the pride of some individual, mu-
of their cars and onto the grass, mcipal, or corporate body.
-even in wheelchairs,without having If you share our views and con-
to struggle through a parking lot or cerns please join the Citizens to
find specially marked places for the Save Stewart Park and sign the pe-
handicapped tition now circulating through Itha-
2. The present design is also ex- ca.These can be found at the Com-
ceptionally good for families with munity Self-Reliance Center,301 S.
young children. They can park in a Geneva St.,at 15 Steps Gallery,407
way which permits them simulta- W. Seneca St., and at Schooley's,
neously to watch a baby sleeping in the Commons.
the car and their other children as Walter Slatoff
they runabout the playground or Jimmy Slatoff
dash under the sprinklers or feed Joan Slatoff
the ducks. Or they can picnic near Town of Ithaca
their cars and still keep an eye on
their children at play.
They have easy access to their
cars for such things as changing di-
apers or carting playpens or picnic
supplies. Moreover,it is much easi-
er and far less dangerous to get
children from the cars to the play
areas than it would be to herd them
through parking lots.
3. Similarly, groups including
handicapped children and adults
are able to move easily from buses
and cars to picnic and play areas
and back again.Such organizations
as the Special Children's Center
and Meadow House have found the
park accessible and congenial. The
same is true for groups from day
care centers and nursery schools
and just plain birthday parties.
4. While the loop may on occa-
sion become congested with traffic,
it gives many, many people the
pleasure of driving through the
park for a brief look at the lake and
the greenery. This is especially im-
portant in winter, and especially
for older people, when it isn't easy
to be outdoors. And some of us
find the plowed roadways a won-
derful place for walking in the win-
ter when most other areas are too
muddy or deep with snow.
,TAticq 1 N, {r N-P�vrt 2 fS, - S-,c kKAq 3 5 6
40O0KYE STMART FARK
Goodbye Stewart Park,Goodbye!
So hard to believe it's true
My refuge in nature's place is gone.
They've brought in the wrecking crew.
The old trees guarding the bank
The lagoon, a once limpid scene
Is changed to a dirty stagnant brown.
The kingfisher is no longer seen.
The bank is laid with crushed stone.
Wire mesh is holding it there.
Dear willow wise with time and grace
Were torn from their loyal care.
Our refuge of beauty and peace
Is changing more every-day.
I'm sad with the noise and junk.
I wish I could wish it away.
I wince and my sense of despair
At what.is now going on
Cries out, "You keep waiting more
And your Grand Old Park is gone!"
So I labor with ink and with pen
And I say, "Wrecking crew, get lost.
Your shovels and tractors move out.
Your presence is dreadful cost."
Take your concrete curbs along.
The ducks can't waddle today.
As they did when the path was clear
And their young could follow and play.
Let Lake dancing waves tease the shore.
The birds fly happy and free.
Glad nature in old time array
Is the Stewart Park I go to see!
—Charlotte C. Philips
Newfield
1 LETTERS mo-,
Why make Stewart Park
as unpopular as Cass?
I drove through Cass Park!and
Stewart Park late in the afternoon
of the last day of Labor Day week-
end and this is what I observed:
Stewart Park was filled with peo-
ple,though by no means to capaci-
ty,enjoying a wide variety of activ-
ities — picnicking, wading,
boating, strolling, playing baseball
and tennis, driving around the
roads, fishing, playing in the play-
ground,riding the merry-go-round,
walking in the nature areas, sitting
on the.shore, feeding the swans and
ducks, sunning, sitting in cars
watching people and the lake—but
Cass Park, except for the marina
and pool areas, was empty.
No one was using the Cass Park
playground. No one was walking
on the paved waterfront prome-
nade, though one motorcyclist was
using it.No one had parked a car in
the large parking lots and walked to
the-picnic areas (all barbecues and
picnic tables were empty, though it
was near dinner time). A few peo-
ple were sitting on the swings near
the isolated play area.
Since Cass Park incorporates
most of the design "im-
provements" planned for Stewart
Park, one has to ask if the changes
planned are intended to reduce fu-
ture crowding in Stewart Park by
making it as unattractive a place to
be as Cass Park.
I propose a different solution to
potential overcrowding in Stewart
Park: Redesign Cass Park to in-
clude the design features that make
Stewart Park so successful so that
we may have more city park areas
as enjoyable as Stewart Park. Do
not remove the zoo, duck pond,
natural-looking shoreline, open
grassy waterfront, and the delight-
ful and convenient road system(ac-
tually an efficient disguised parking
lot)from Stewart Park and call this
improvement!
Stewart Park is comfortable —
like a favorite old easy chair. Let's
keep it that way.
David Ruether
Lansing
Co
W.LMERS . (t 06 .0-c-
M Stewart Park's appeal please leave Stewart Park the way it
lies in timelessness IS. Elizabeth B. Illencsik
Louis J. Illencsik
We were displeased to hear of the Rochester
" changes proposed for Stewart
Park, as it is a place we still enjoy
w coming to when we visit our family
in Ithaca.
r
We would like to point out that it
is not true that Stewart Park has
undergone basic changes over the
r years. When we played there as
kids 60 years ago, it was much the
same as it is now, with a duck
pond, lagoon and pavilions.
r
In fact, one of the pleasures of
visiting the park is a sense of
•timelessness, a true sense of place.
= It is deeply satisfying to know that
our children and grandchildren can
enjoy the same park that our par-
. ents brought us to when we were
young.
To the planners and architects we
tsay: Improve the bathrooms and
;reclaim the swimming area, but
G (
f—n ---t eric4 4 /I 18b
What's the status
of park master plan?
Is Peter Trowbridge implement-
ing the master plan(the Niederkorn
plan)to restructure Stewart Park or
is he coming up with another plan?
His contract with the city, a por-
tion of which The Journal printed
in the story on the Stewart Park
acreage mixup(Sept. 11), only stip-
ulates that he is to "review" the
master plan,but the application for
funds to help pay his expenses says
he is to"build on the master plan."
Some members of Common
Council tell us he is supposed to be
working with the master plan while
others deflect criticism of that plan
by assuring us he is free to ignore it.
We think the public that is pay-
ing for both the Niederkorn and
Trowbridge plans has a right to
know. Doria Higgins
Town of Vaca
33
96 891
r � r
0
a
O
t
6
The dreaded Octopus.
Best Place To Entertain Kids:
Stewart Park by a mile — or two.
Best Picnic Park:
Stewart Park. Followed closely by Taughannock Park,
followed, not surprisingly, by Treman Park.
Best Place Left As It Is:
A,
. m
0
0
r
�f� a
Stewart Park shore.
continued on page 34
IYes, this was a loaded question, folks. And you came
through with flying colors. Stewart Park and its
management fervor made this a landslide(not landscape)
victory here. However, concern was also voiced for
Lick Brook, the Farmers Market, Six Mile Creek, Col-
legetown, Lost Gorge, Hidden Gorge and, yes indeed,
Ithaca, New York.
The Cornell Daily Sun Thursday,September 25,1986 7 6 3
co>i-4 u sv" 'I/z_T7 eG _P Stewart Park-
` Architecture Profs. O pp ose Plan
By SARA-ELLEN AMSTER Prof. Vincent Mulcahy, ar- mings (D-2nd Ward) objected to
About 12 Cornell architecture chitecture, said, "In my depart- the Cornell department's involve-
professors have joined more than ment [the design division of the ment with the plan. "The City of
6,000 Ithacans in signing a peti- architecture department),we were Ithaca doesn't want to be embroil-
tion calling for the Ithaca Com- virtually unanimous in our signing ed in the internal affairs of a
mon Council to drop its plans to to oppose-the Stewart Park plan." department of Cornell,"she said.
redesign Stewart Park. He said that he posted a petition She accused the department of
"We think the park works the next to a map of the proposed "academic politics"and said there
way it is," said .Doria Higgins, plan to redesign the park on a is a philosophical split in the
spokesperson for Citizens to Save department bulletin board. Peti- department over the design.
Stewart Park, the group that tions is still circulating in the Repudiating the existence of a
started the petitions. department, he said. philosophical split, Mulcahy said,
`Absurd Transformation' "As design professionals, we have
Mulcahy called the Stewart a certain obligation to point out
Park Improvement Master Plan the problems with the plan. We
"an abrupt, absurd-transforma- .live in this community too. We've
tion"of the park. "I got involved raised children here and continue
when I saw the original plan. I to use the park."
said, `this is crazy,'"he said. He added, "Stewart Park is our
Stewart Park _ Council member Susan J.Cum- Continued on Page 8
Profs Oppose Redes� n
Architecture g
Continued from Page 1 to the park were implemented, it others who were supportive. A the recommendations in the plan
business. And, I think it's would cost the council $5.5 couple more are on the fence,"he are "inappropriate" and will
everyone's business." million over the next 10 to 15 mod. "never get done."
Public Opposition years. Council members reached last Though some of its proposals
In response to the overwhelm- Council member Daniel L.Hof- night were divided on the issue. are unrealistic, the plan is just a
ing public opposition to the plan, fman(D-5th Ward), a co-sponsor Although he encouraged com- group of ideas, he said, and "we
two council members have in- of the resolution, said, "If we .munity input in park im- have the power to pick and
troduced a resolution that would could assure the public that there provements, Mayor John C. choose"from the proposals.
set it aside pending community would be no drastic changes to the Gutenberger was not supportive Council member Richard Booth
discussion and the creation of an park in the near future then peo- of the resolution. Gutenberger (D-3rd Ward)said that because of
alternate plan. ple would calm down and discuss said that"to stop the plan in mid- the large number of questions
The joint resolution will be this issue." stream"would be"a disservice to about the plan, it would be ap-
voted on when the council meets Hoffman said he had been leery the park." propriate to set it aside.Booth is a
on Oct. 1. There will be a public from the beginning about "I'm afraid that if the decision is professor of city and regional
hearing on improvements to the redesigning the park's road system made to scrap the master plan that planning.
park on Oct. 8. and about the creation of the nothing will ever get done," the Council member Cummings
The master plan is currently be- island and the pier."I was uncom- mayor said. said many council members are in
ing reviewed by Prof. Peter J. fortable from the start,and public "What we have to do is work agreement with the public on most
Trowbridge, landscape architec- reaction convinced me that many with the process. The master plan of the controversial aspects of the
ture.The city was able to hire him people want the basic park design includes provisions for continued plan."I'm against the lighted pro-
to rework the plan through a to remain the same,"he said. community involvement at each menade, the parking lots, the
$21,000 grant from the New York Council member Robert and every step. There are reasons island, but there are excellent
State Council of the Arts. - Romanowski (R-1st Ward) is the for every proposal in the plan,"he things in the plan that need to be
After scheduled public hearings other sponsor of the resolution. said.- done," she said. "We should set
and phone surveys, Trowbridge At the outset,he voted in favor of "What will come out of aside parts of the plan.".
will provide the city with a new the master plan. He said he is Trowbridge's work is what to do Prefers Committee
design based upon the master changing his position because of to improve Stewart Park," he
plan. If the proposed resolution the negative public reaction he said. She said the Hoffman-
passes council, however, discovered when talking to Council member Raymond M. Romanowski resolution "may be
Trowbridge's design will not be residents throughout his ward. Schlather (D-lst Ward) said he an appropriate step, but I would
based on the controversial plan. Trowbridge said the resolution would probably support the prefer it be sent to committee"
Points of the Plan would make his job easier. "It resolution. He said the current before going to council. She sug-
Some of the proposals in the would clarify things so that plan- plan is "somewhat of a pipe gested that Planning and Develop-
plan that have prompted wide- i0g could continue without this dream" that the council can't af- ment Committee members take it
spread criticism call for three new cloud of controversy. The whole ford to implement, adding that up at their next meeting.
parking lots containing 340 process is confused with history, the park will need some capital "The hoopla is ironic," said
spaces,a lighted promenade along We have to look at the task at improvements eventually,whether council member David Lytel
the shore of .Cayuga Lake, a hand." there is a general guideline for (D-2nd Ward). "There's no group
municipal pier for public fishing, Trowbridge said he wants to design or not. lobbying for radical changes to
a formal area for dancing and hear suggestions for the improve- Council member James P.Den- the park, and the council agrees
concerts,and a small island about ment of the park and not objec- nis (D-3rd Ward) would not sup- with the public."Both the council
300 feet off-shore. tions to the original plan. port the resolution. and the public stand against the
The master plan was created in Hoffman said he thought the Dennis pointed out that the city more controversial proposals, and
1984 as a guideline for long-term proposal had a good chance of be- council has to vote on each part of Trowbridge's new design will
improvement to Stewart Park. If ing passed by council at the up- the proposal in the plan before it hopefully exclude those pro-
all of the proposed improvements coming meeting. "I talked to two is implemented and that some of POsals, he said.
6�
1t4,,4cc, Jo'�4l-ACiA 0c t- ', 1 q 6
Family-oriented park
needs no overhaul
Another summer has passed. Re-
membering so many enjoyable
summer weekend picnics in past
years in Stewart Park, I can't be-
lieve they are revamping such com-
fortable, family-oriented park fa-
cilities.
If Stewart Park becomes a too
perfectly landscaped drive-in-show-
place wish remote picnic areas,
when, will future generations enjoy
the park we did? Cass Park is great
for watching slowball games, but
that's all.
Joan G. Scott
C4.1i/hek� Dryden
Oct 1 (5?4
6S
Z �cq Tvv c s Dc t Z, 1 9 8 6
NOT A RENOVATION
In your story on our admirable new local
TV program "More Than the News" (IT
911/86) you mistakenly refer to the
Stewart Park Master Plan (the
Niederkorn plan) as the "city's plan for
renovating" Stewart Park.
The Master Plan, while it has two
renovation items — the picnic pavilion
and the boathouse — is not a
"renovation" plan in that it drastically
restructures the park. The renovation
plan for Stewart Park is that proposed by
Citizens to Save Stewart Park who urge
the Mayor and Common Council to adopt
a resolution calling for proper
maintenance (not itemized in the
Niederkorn plan) and 'renovation
(including the picnic pavilion and the
boathouse) of the park.
—Judith Holliday
Citizens to Save Stewart Park
66 u-
t St
W IV 0 Out
t`rl
o �
J
!S w
y
i
� � O
v r.
a V o
A
W� m you a?
H, o vimae � ? d �
as a
W t5
0
am
0.0�► ... " o0N as
id w
po %!I d d
d d a.d „ d�
:e4m? d�c m asp
� �fr oy
0
o � o
a�
0. vi a� 0
�a Cao d,, �,.e
lot A
0'.1 fit,
1tS � JOS� *�
ZY
100.2. 411
o �..
� i4 {Y�ttt
a
r4a�;IN!.
' I •
a
~ ' w-- � .r
Oili;ilSaap �+ 'fltja ..,�
y• r� } „e • � zx�
�'�"Vie+... • .� ... �- t�' �•. - �,
rie,g`j�L�. �•� ., s
w 4j�
f 4��• '�� �~�' ~Ate. tl�Ya'a_.2
G9
IV
CITIZENS TO SAVE STEWART PARK STATEMENTS
1 . Statement of Position, July 1986
2. Petition
3. Statement made to the Mayor and Common Council , August 6, 1986
Is Leasing Public Land at Stewart Park to the Chamber of
Commerce to Construct an Office Building in the City's Best
Interest?
Imposing New Design on Stewart Park Can Destroy Its Beauty
4. Statement to Planning and Development Board, September 23, 1986
Help Us to Save Stewart Park
5. Statement to the Mayor and Common Council , October 1 , 1986
On Handing the Mayor our Petition with Over 6,000 Signatures
6. On the Subject of Stewart Park - One Architect 's VieN,,
Prepared on Behalf of Citizens to Save Stewart Park by
Vincent Mulcahy
7. Analysis of the Data from Trowbridge and Trowbridge
Opinion Survey of Stewart Park
8. Advertisements
70
CITIZENS TO SAVE STEWART PARK
Statement of Position
Ithaca is most fortunate to have Stewart Park, a place of great natural beauty
that has been landscaped and designed to let that natural beauty be clearly seen
and yet also permit free and easy flow of human activity. There is an elegant
simplicity to the main design elements of roadways, trees and grass, which allow
large congregations to gather comfortably or small groups to feel a sense of
intimacy.
We recognize how unique such a combination is. We think Stewart Park should be
treated as a precious resource, a precious community resource. We urge proper
maintenance, preservation and restoration o bui dings, roads, landscaping and
other facilities of the park.
Because we are for Stewart Park, we are a ag inst the new plan (Master Plan for
Improvement of tewart Park) or any other p an which would impose new design or
landscaping on the park. It seems appropriate that the Board of Public Works in
1983 requested of the city long range guidelines for the park, but the answer
should have been, as we now urge, to maintain, restore and preserve the park.
Why, when we have a park of such great beauty and which absorbs people and their
activities so superbly well , should we impose change upon it and at such great
expense? We think the community is asking this question with a growing sense of
outrage.
We think the major elements of the new plan would not only mar the natural
beauty of the park but would destroy those elements of the park design which
permit such good use of the space for human activity. The elements in the new
plan, which we can in good conscience support, can be subsumed under mainte-
nance, preservation or restoration (with the exception of enlarging park land to
the northwest, and this we certainly do support if the environmental impact
studies also support it. )
Therefore, we urge the Mayor and Common Council to rescind their resolution and
to discard in its entirety that part of the Master Plan for Improvement of the
Stewart Park Complex which concerns the area we know as Stewart Park and to
resolve instead to preserve, maintain, and restore that park because it is a
place of great natural beauty and of gracious and efficient design.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
July 1986
2 Hillcrest Drive
Ithaca, NY 14850
-7(
Addenda to Statement of Position
Because our Statement of Position is based on recognition that Stewart Park is
a naturally beautiful spot that is extraordinarily well designed and that,
therefore, no new design should be imposed upon it, any analysis of the new
Master Plan is essentially irrelevant; nevertheless, we feel there may be some
value in focusing on some of the major errors in that. plan.
PARKING LOTS
We are against construction of three large parking lots. At a cost of $748,000,
they would provide less parking than is now available (see next item, "Road-
ways") . The microcTimates set up by three such large areas of asphalt would be
unpleasant. The largest of the proposed lots (which would hold 340 cars) is
over one-third larger than Woolworth's parking lot (which holds 200 cars) ;
the second largest (180 cars) is almost as large as Woolworth's, and the
third lot (112 cars) is more than half as large as Woolworth's. For an area as
small as Stewart Park, these large lakes of asphalt are a significant consider-
ation. The proposed isolation and screening of all three lots and the earth-
mounds around two of them would create a possible breeding ground for muggers
and other crime. Even hidden, such lots are unsightly introductions to the
park. The earthmounds and plantings on them would obstruct the open vistas
which constitute one of the natural beauties of the park. The proposed lots
would be inconvenient. Most people using the park like being able to drive
close to the area they choose to use.
ROADWAYS
We are against the proposed deletion of all roadways except new ones leading
directly to the three proposed parking lots. It is pleasant to be able to drive
around the park. It is convenient and in some cases necessary to be able to
park near the area one wants to use. If traffic problems such as occasional
speeding occur, they can surely be solved by other than deletion of the entire
system (what about speed bumps?). Parking along the ample space provided by the
present roadway permits greatly increased parking during peak holidays. This
expanded parking will not be available under the Niederkorn plan. On July 4, 1986,
at 7:30 p.m. , 485 parked cars and 277 additional spaces along the road were
counted. Total : 762. The proposed lots can only hold 600 cars and, because
most roads have been deleted, possible overflow parking is greatly diminished.
To remove well utilized roadways and build unattractive parking lots and new
roads to those lots, at a total cost of $1 ,027,000, seems unconscionable to us.
SHORELINE PROMENADE
We do not think the proposed promenade would "enhance" the shoreline. A promenade
"outlined" with "informal planting" would restrict present freedom of movement
along the shoreline. It would limit the number of people who could gather along
the shoreline. A large and joyous congregation, such as occurred during the flare
ceremony July 4, 1986 (and other years) would not be possible. Lighting the proposed
promenade would destroy the beauty and serenity of sunset watching. Lighting the
promenade would create dark shadows outside the lit area and would create a possible
climate for crime. "Informal planting" would usurp space better used by people.
-2-
-7 3
similar items . . . because they cannot be foreseen at this time." In other words,
we do not know the estimated total cost of the project. All we know is that it
will cost considerably more than 5.5 million dollars.
Many of those we have interviewed have expressed fear that "the next step will
be an admission fee." To us it seems a very precious privilege that such a
lovely spot is accessible to all in our community and not just to those who
could afford a fee. The city may now say they don't want to charge fees, but
how else is the city going to pay for these extraordinary debts they are so
casually assuming?
We think the park is beautiful , that it is well laid out for easy and com-
fortable human use, that it works marvelously well for the enjoyment of many,
and we are for preserving it and we are against imposing new design upon it.
We urge that the new plan be discarded in its entirety and that the Mayor and
Common Council resolve instead to preserve, restore and maintain Stewart Park
because it is now a spot of great natural beauty and of elegant and gracious
design.
-4-
}
Petition to the Mayor and Corrinon Council Not to Imoose Orast=c Chances on Stewart Park
We do not"want the willow row (35 trees) west of the Pavilion cut down. page 65*
We do not want three large asphalt parking lots constructed, the largest of which will
be larger than the lot behind Woolworths. page 18*
We do not want all roads within the park removed. page 17*
We do not want man-made hills created "to relieve the flatness of the terrain.'page64*
We do not want to spend 5.5 million dollars for such items. page 92*
Although a few of the proposals in the plan would improve, the majority would damage
the park and, because these worst proposals have the highest priority (the large
parking lot is next to be built), we do not think there is time to winnow out the bad
from the good.
Accordingly, we the undersigned respectfully urge the Mayor and Common Council to show
they are sufficiently highminded to reverse a decision when the common good is involved
and that they discard the master plan to alter Stewart Park and halt any further
implementation of that plan and not try to salvage it which might make it even worse.
We urge proper maintenance, preservation and restoration of existing building, .roads,
landscaping and other facilities in the park.
signature printed name address
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Signatures above collected by:
name acs ess
*M aster Plan for irproveme t of the Stewart Park Cczp1=z app_eved
in concept by Ithaca Ccmron Council January 2 , 1985 (se_ everF=_ge for quotation.
F1_. se ret,=n petition to .
Citizens to Sz_te Ste•eiar t Park, 2 I?illcres t rrive , Itrac_, N.Y.
Back of Petition
Master Plan for Improvement of the Stewart Park Complex, prepared by
PLC,:�ILIiv'G/Li+VIRC.:rIE::lAL RZS3AF0H CONSULTANTS Land _fanners (Tom niederkorr.
September, 1984 for the Board of Public Works and approved in concept
by Common Council January 2, 1985. Underlining below is ours.
removal of willows
"Specific planting recommendations include retain_ng the existing
willow row east of the pavilion, but elimination cf the willow row
west of the pavilion area." page 65
parking lots
"construct three new parking lots directly accessible from the spine
road . . . The lar¢est lot will provide over 300 s-zaces in the northeast
corner of the park . . . A 180 to 200 car lot near the boathouse will
serve the western end of the park and a smaller lot of about 100 spaces
will be located near the Children's Play Area " page 18
roads removed -
"Replace the present roadway system in Stewart Park with a single
sv�ine running in a curvilinear manner along the souther side of the
park where it will be well removed from the lakesore . . . and Markin
would normally not be permitted along it." page 17
1•;ln-made hills
"To provide low earth mounds to relieve the flatness of the terrain,
thereby adding inderest to the topography " page 64
5.5 Million dollars
estimated costs of individual items are listed on zages 84-02 and the
grand total of the items , "5 ,354.700" page 92.
"It should be noted that cost estimates indicated for those items
involving construction are magnitude-of-cost estimates only. " page 83
"Estimates do not take inflation into account." page 83
76
Citizens to Save Stewart Park 2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, N.Y.
Statement before Common Council , Ithaca, N.Y. , August 6, 1986
Is Leasing Public Land at Stewart Park to the Chamber of Commerce
to Construct an Office Building in the City's Best Interest?
We question the wisdom of locating the Chamber of Commerce on the periphery
of the city -- on land which, while it is owned by the city, is actually within
the boundaries of the Town of Ithaca. Is it in the City's or the Chamber of
Commerce's best interest for the Chamber to locate as far from the heart of the
city as it can get? Isn't this exactly the kind of evacuation of center city
that this Council and the City Planning Department should be fighting to stop? '
Stewart Park and adjacent city land is a precious community resource, a
valuable public asset, our most beautiful lake frontage land. Every additional
building constructed there, and most especially a business building, decreases
the gracious and open ambience of the park and its vistas.
Is it proper for the city to lease land for building purposes (which amounts
to giving it away) to a private organization which is a registered lobby group in
Washington and in Albany and which locally just a few years back was intent on
forming a Political Action Committee?
There are Chamber members themselves who feel the Chamber will be
violating its own integrity if it accepts handouts from the city. The Chamber's
job is to promote business and most times its goals and those of the city will
ride tandem. But there will be times when those two interests are opposed. It
is not right that at those times one be obligated to the other by what is
essentially an unrevocable agreement -- an agreement which could only be revoked
by the city buying the building the Chamber would build there.
The Masterplan to alter Stewart Park says the park is overcrowded. We do
not want more buildings at the park to increase that overcrowding.
And may we respectfully remind you when you are looking at architect draw-
ings for the Chamber of Commerce building and judging them that you remember
that the original cost estimate approved by you for the Youth Bureau was
$700,000 and that actual cost agreements for the Youth Bureau are now over
$1 ,500,000 and will , very possibly, be even higher before the building is
finished.
FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
77
Citizens to Save Stewart Park 2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, N.Y.
Statement before Common Council , Ithaca, N.Y. , August 6, 1986
IMPOSING NEW DESIGN ON STEWART PARK CAN DESTROY ITS BEAUTY
Stewart Park is a place of great natural beauty, landscaped and designed so
that its beauty can be clearly seen and yet also permit free and easy flow of
human activity.
We think Stewart Park is a precious community resource and we urge proper
maintenance, preservation and restoration of buildings, roads, landscaping and
other facilities of the park.
Because we are for Stewart Park, we are a ainst the Master Plan for
Improvement of Stewart Park or an other plan, inc uding whatever plan
Mr. Trowbridge will present which would impose new designs or landscapaing on
the park. We think that Common Council and the Mayor in voting for the Master
Plan have shown an unawareness of how easily the beauty of the park can be
destroyed by imposing new roads, new parking lots, new traffic patterns, etc.,
upon it.
The elements in the Master Plan which we can in good conscience support
can be subsumed under maintenance, preservation or restoration.
Therefore, we urge the Mayor and Common Council to discard in its entirety
that part of the Master Plan for Improvement of the Stewart Park Complex which
concerns the area we know as Stewart Park and to resolve instead to preserve,
maintain, and restore that park as a place of great natural beauty and of
gracious and efficient design.
FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
7b
'itizens To Save Stewart Par!K 2 Hillcrest Drive , Ithacan ,
Utatement before Planning and %evelotiment Board , 3eptember 23 , 1'0'316
Help Us To Save 3tewart Park
e , �1t1ZenS t0 Save Stewart Park are here toniEht
to ask your support in our efforts to save a beloved and beautiful
local landmark, Stewart Park, from being drastically changed by
imposing new and unnecessary designs upon it at great and
unnecessary expense . 'ale ask your support in persuading
Common Council to discard the m=aster Plan (the _Tieder'.corn Plar_)
to alter Stewart Park and to halt any further redesign of the
plan by Trowbridge & Trowbridge and instead to adopt a resolution
to properly maintain, preserve and restore Stewart Park and its
facilities .
Our Statement of Position handed to you earlier presents
our viewpoint and analysis in more detail than this statement.
,Te think it extraordinary for a city to impose new
design at great expense upon a p=arts that presently functions so
happily. Stewart Park is a beautiful place which permits free
and, easy human movement and activity as it is 7resently designed.
it is. a satisfying place , visually , emotionally , sriritually _Mnd
physically , in which to be . Thy change this felicity ?
Turing the summer we have gathered over 6 ,000 signatures
to our petition to the i-iayor and Common -Council. The reason_ we
have been able to gather so many signatures in such a short time
is because the community is eaSer to sign the petitionl. They
do not want Stewart ?ark changed. Over and over gain rec le
.sk the same cuestions . " .Thy is the lark '--in= chw'P_oed? `.:'e
it just the way it is . " ":;hy are we s-pendind so much rye ney for
changes we don' t avant which will change the charactar of the
p=rk are love?" II :iho is doing this to our r ,r {?"
Please helz us and the community to s:--,,,e Our
Citizens to Save Stewart Park 2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, N.Y.
Statement to the Mayor and Common Council October 1 , 1986,
Before Handing the Mayor our Petition with Over 6,000 Signatures.
We can all agree, I am sure, that Stewart Park is a beautiful place much
loved by the people of our community. Its existing design and layout,
including the present roadway system, can comfortably accommodate large
congregations with sufficient parking, as well as smaller groups and indi-
viduals.
We do not think new design or restructuring should be imposed upon it
-- by anyone! (This was discussed in greater detail in our Statement of
Position handed to you in August. )
The history and issues of the master plan to alter Stewart Park have
been studied most carefully by us. We cannot find any valid reason for
imposing changes upon the park.
We ask you again, as the signers of our petition have asked: "Why does
the City want to change Stewart Park? Who will be served by changing the
Park? What evidence can you present to support the need for such change?
Do you realize how easily the beauty and character of the park can be
destroyed by any redesigning of it? Why spend so much money for changes in
the park that people do not want?"
We have been told safety was a factor in your decision. We were told
that removal of the present roadway and the construction of three large
parking lots was to protect humans from cars. Yet when we checked with the
Ithaca Police, and its accident report section, we were told that no one
there could remember a car accident in the park due to driving -- ever.
But they did remember accidents in city parking lots and even one recent
fatality. We think large hidden parking lots can breed mugging and other
crimes. Instead of making our safe park safer, such parking lots could make
it less so.
We have been told that members of representative groups in the
community making up the Mayor's Advisory Committee asked for the master
plan. But the first meeting with members of those representative groups
was not held until 28 February 1984, by which time the Niederkorn plan had
been underway for months.
Citizens to Save Stewart Park 2
We have been told that the public was informed of progress on the plan
and that input from various groups was requested and assimilated into the
plan. Yet knowledgeable people have said their input was ignored and
requests to be informed not carried out. Announcement of time and place of
the public meeting in April 1984 only appeared in the Ithaca Journal in the
third paragraph of a story on the master plan in general . A Planning and
Development Department memo says of that meeting, "Attendance at the presen-
tation was limited . . . it was apparent that those present were primarily
representatives of agencies or groups directly or indirectly associated with
the planning effort or as identified user/interest organizations." Only 19
of the questionnaires distributed at that meeting were filled out.
And now data from a survey of opinion on Stewart Park, being conducted
by the staff of Trowbridge & Trowbridge, will be presented in the near
future. One of the cardinal rules of proper questionnaire methodology is
that the actual pollsters be unbiased and disinterested; that is, with
nothing to gain or lose from the results. We raise the question whether
Mr. Trowbridge, who has signed a contract with the City to redesign Stewart
Park, qualifies as a person who is disinterested. If he is not disinter-
ested, the data collected by his own paid staff would be most definitely
open to question. Whatever the results of his survey, it will not answer
the all-important question, "Do the citizens of Ithaca want Stewart Park
redesigned?", because the survey never asks the question. It is conspicu-
ous by its absence. We think the answer is evident in the citizens response
to our petition.
We submit herewith our petition with well over 6,000, approaching
7,000, signatures. These people urge you to discard the master plan to
alter Stewart Park and to halt any further implementation of that plan.
We ask you not to try to salvage the plan with help from Mr. Trowbridge
or anyone else, but to adopt instead a resolution calling for maintenance,
preservation and restoration of existing buildings, roads, landscaping and
other facilities in Stewart Park.
We ask you as elected representatives who care as we do about Stewart
Park, to reverse the unfortunate decision to impose change upon a place the
community has loved and enjoyed for many years and which it hopes to enjoy,
just as it is, for many years to come.
ON THE SUBJECT OF STEWART PARK - ONE ARCHITECT'S VIEW,
PREPARED ON BEHALF OF CITIZENS TO SAVE STEWART PARK
BY VINCENT MULCAHY
Stewart Park, as many generations of Ithacans have come to know it, possesses
an unparalleled sense of place. Those inclined toward analysis often refer to its unchanging
and timeless qualities in the midst of the otherwise changing circumstances of use, to
its ease of access, its freedom of activity, and to its elegant simplicity. Others less than
prone to analysis have simply and repeatedly exclaimed "we like it the way it is." Few
places in this community have sustained such analysis or inspired such emotion. Yet some
would belittle these responses to the park as sentimental and unrealistic in the face of
ever changing modernity. These are perhaps the same individuals who would maintain,
at least by implication, that change is its own imperative and always constitutes a form
of progress. But surely all must sense that certain constants do exist for us, in the daily
and regular path of the sun, the passing of the seasons, in the countenance of a virginal
landscape or in the contour of a familiar ridge as it confronts the sky. Perhaps the
sentiment which argues that Stewart Park should continue as a constant within this
community is neither purely sentimental nor ideologically opposed to change. Perhaps
those who would have their children enjoy in Stewart Park what they enjoyed there as
children understand the terms of Stewart Park more profoundly than the indiscriminate
purveyors of change. Perhaps they intuitively grasp that Stewart Park, despite many
alterations, additions, and deletions since its conception as an amusement park in 1904,
is by evolution and design all about constancy and timelessness. For Stewart Park as a
work of man derives a clear logic and primal power from the extraordinary and timeless
glacial landscape within which it sits. It cannot be understood apart from this landscape
but rather structures defines and characterizes itself in relation to it.
The most direct and essential observation one can make about Stewart Park is
that it is inextricably connected with the lake. In fact it constitutes a kind of landscape
analogy to the magnificent body of water which it adjoins. Like the lake it forms a single,
relatively invariable, largely uninterrupted planar surface. In this way it prolongs the
lake at its head extending visually and spatially the lake's vast planar expanse beyond
the edge of land, across the park's surface and to a final definition against the dark forest
wall of the bird sanctuary.
The result is that, in concept and in its structure, Stewart Park belongs to the
circumstances of the lake. Simultaneously it possesses the lake, the receding ridges within
which it sits and the expansive sky which overstretches it; it possesses these and the other
aspects of its surroundings like no other place.
The distinguished local architects, Vivian and Gibb, with their landscape architect,
William Webster, (reliably alleged to have been an associate of Frederick Law Olmsted)
clearly understood the inherent power and beauty within these circumstances when they
undertook the design of an amusement park in 1904. Like the willow trees which now
appropriately grace the park, the pavilions by Vivian were conceived of as roof canopies
elevated above yet still in clear reference to the planar expanses of park and lake. It
cannot be regarded as trivial that these structures overtly allude to a concept of
freestanding tree or grove with their columnar stalks and broad sheltering canopies. In
their use of this concept, the designers clearly intended to minimize disruption of the
park surface, allowing it and the eye to pass through and beyond to the varied near and
distant vistas. As a result, these structures define their own role consistent with a notion
which embraces and assembles the ineffable and timeless elements of the extraordinary
larger context.
-2-
Over the years other additions to the park, not necessarily envisioned by Vivian
Gibb or Webster have tended consciously or unconsciously to endorse what they so clearly
understood. Most of the major planting, for example, has neither functioned to screen
or demarcate areas nor to interrupt visual continuity. On the contrary, additions like
the relatively recently added Willow Row have, again perhaps by design, but more likely
less self-consciously, tended to frame and encourage vistas and to liberate the park surface
consistent with the concepts of Vivian and the intrinsic imperatives of the place. Even
the play equipment tends to conform to the requirements of Stewart Park in the degree
to which it does not displace space or interrupt views.
The net result is that from virtually any location in the park, from the lagoon back
against the forest wall, from the center of the Dance Pavilion, and from the play area
behind and through the picnic pavilion the lake is always and constantly there. All activity
or absence of activity takes place within its presence, and concurrently within the presence
of the forest edge, the glacially formed hills and ridges which together embrace lake,
park and city, the circumstances of Fall Creek as it extends back into the land and all
the varied events of sun, sky and season.
While few of us exclusively use Stewart Park to always and constantly view these
things, the park is structured in such a way that we always sense them. The great green
expanse of lawn at Stewart Park is with the lake the nexus of all which it surveys. Its
characteristic as a simple unified continuum allows an enormously rich, diverse, complex,
and free pattern of perspective and use to exist within it. The spatial delineation of it
into zones of activity, the restructuring of it into preferred versus less preferred
components and perspectives would destroy it.
In this regard, critical to its maintenance is its present format for vehicular
circulation. It would be a great error to disconnect the park visually and literally from
its forest edge by massive screened car compounds. Stewart Park need not and must not
conform to the now thoughtless conventional planning axioms about people versus cars.
Delineate cars from people according to these axioms and we violate the park as an
organism. At Stewart Park, the car is not to be banished to holding compounds thereby
characterizing the experience of entry and arrival as if K-Mart were the preferred model.
The Park's present ring road accomplishes an appropriate vehicular access and a graceful
sequence of movement across the surface of the park accommodating parking unobtrusively
and incorporating the existence of the auto as yet another aspect of vantage and use within
its continuum of use.
And so to those who in good faith would argue that Stewart Park is in a state of
transition and in need of definition, I say look again. To those who advise a new park
based on a string of unrelated optimized contemporary conventions, I say we have a park
worlds better than that which such conventions might ever yield. To those who would
designate which precinct is for picnicking, which for promenading and which for parking;
and to those who would manipulate the landscape for definition and interest, I respectfully
suggest you misundertand. Stewart Park already is. It works. It possesses a conceptual
logic and clarity as a park and as a landscape. It is profundly connected with its
surroundings and in its simplicity possesses rare and timeless qualities. It is precious,
in need of support and maintenance. It is fragile and can easily be inadvertently destroyed.
Finally to those who in a breech of public faith would turn Stewart Park into a
political battle ground I say let it be.
� 3
CITIZENS TO SAVE STEWART PARK
Analysis of Data from Trowbridge and Trowbridge Survey of Stewart Park
Data from the Trowbridge Stewart Park survey show:
1 . The people of Ithaca use Stewart Park.
2. They are happy with it as it is.
3. The only change requested by a majority is better restrooms.
Data from the survey do not support many of the interpretations made by
Trowbridge in his "Survey Summary. " We find his presentation and inter-
pretation of the data confusing and misleading. In cases where the number
of persons responding is small , percentage figures give misleading weight.
For greater clarity we have substituted the actual number of persons
involved for the percentage figures used by Trowbridge. We think this
alternate presentation permits a more accurate interpretation.
Contents: Condensation of Results of Survey.
Tabulation of Data, Using Actual Numbers of People
or Items Instead of Percentages.
Citizens to Save Stewart Park do not think the park should be redesigned.
We think it is a beautiful place as it is. We and the 7,000 people who
have signed our petition urge that existing buildings, roads, landscaping
and other facilities in the park be properly maintained, preserved and
restored.
2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, New York. October 29, 1986
Condensation of Results of Trowbridge Survey of Stewart Park
In general , items listed below are the first, second, third, or fourth highest
categories.
1 . Do The People of Ithaca Use Stewart Park?
Yes, Trowbridge data show 88.8% use it.
2. Which User Groups Use It Most? (Survey Questions 5 and 6)
Heads of Household 2,243 visits
12 and under 1 ,294
31-40 1 ,208
21-30 1 , 193
(Trowbridge's data contradict his claim that "12 and under" is largest user
group. )
3. Are People of Ithaca Satisfied with the Park and its Facilities? (Q-13)
Overwhelmingly, yes.
Most people graded most park aspects and facilities "Excellent" or "Above
Average". Only "Restrooms" were judged "Below Average" or "Unsatisfactory".
In his "Survey Summary" Trowbridge has manipulated this data by averaging
"C" with "D&F". We have called a number of respondents in this survey and
they have all told us emphatically their grade of "C" was passing, or
satisfactory, and should not be averaged with failing grades "D&F".
4. What Do People Do Most at the Park? (Q-10)
Number of times activity performed by household members:
Lake viewing 1 ,686 Feeding the ducks 778
Walking or jogging 1 ,317 Using children 's play equipment 707
Picnicking 1 ,001 Carousal rides 352
5. What Do People Like Best About the Park? (Q-8)
Number of Respondents:
Lake location 67
Natural surroundings 13
6. What Do People Like Least About the Park? (Q-9)
Loud road groups 30
No swimming 20
Traffic speeds 11 (Why not put in speed bumps tomorrow?)
Note: We think two other items listed, "highway location - 9" and
"difficult access - 5", are negative comments on the recent removal
of the sycamore grove (which formerly screened Route 13) to put in
the new access road and the Youth Bureau Building. A good example
of the bad effect redesigning and relandscaping can eve.
gS
Condensation of Results - 2
7. What Facilities at the Park Do People
"Want More, Less or About the Same"? (Q-11 )
Most people picked "Same" for all but two of the facilities listed. They
like the Park the way it is. They do want more restrooms and more laisde
picnic tables.
8. Are There Activities and Facilities Not
Now at Park that People Would Like There? (Q-12)
NO 92 YES 83
Swimming 25 Boat rental 12 Restaurant Concession 8
Program Events 20 Zoo 9 Other 28
Considering the small number of people giving each category an answer, we
wonder why Trowbridge devoted 4 of the 12 items in his "Summary of Results"
to the responses to this question (Items 5, 6, 7 & 8). The data contradict
his statements that there is a "strong desire for additional programming" and
"Three of the five most frequent responses indicate water or waterfront access. "
9. Which Items Got the Best and the Worst Ratings? (Q-11 & 13)
Visual attractiveness of the park and its entrance got best ratings.
Restrooms got worst ratings.
10. Are There Other Improvements People Want? (Q-15)
Who knows? Trowbridge has lumped together incompatible categories and used
percentages so confusingly, it is difficult to interpret the data.
Visual appearance/maintenance 50
Roadways, parking/traffic speeds 24
Swimming 17
Control drinking/noise 16
Landscaping/screen parking 16
"Visual appearance/maintenance" lumps together items such as "restrooms"
which we know consistently scored poorly elsewhere, and "visual
appearance" which we know consistently scored highly elsewhere in
the survey.
Similarly, we know that some people expressed concern about speeding
elsewhere in the survey, but not about roadways and parking. To lump
them together gives a false weight to all three.
Trowbridge asserts that 13.9% (his "Summary of Results" incorrectly says
15.6%") voted for "increasing and improving the landscaping. " What he
does not make clear is that this 13.9% represents only 16 people --
scarcely a strong mandate to redesign the landscaping at Stewart Park,
especially when viewed against the high scores given by large numbers
of people to the visual appearance of the park.
8�
Tabulation of Data from Trowbridge and Trowbridge Survey of Stewart Park.
1-5. Who Are Respondents - Heads of households.
Number of Respondents - Trowbridge says 197. But for most of
survey N is 175 or less (22 respondents were dropped from Format A
because they had not visited park this year).
3. Total Number of Members in Total Households - >540 ("more than")
4. Number of Household Members by Age Grouping
12 and under 78
13-20 83
21-30 211
31-40 85
41-60 51
61 and over 36
5. Number of Times Heads of
Households Visited Park This Year - 2,243.
6. Number of Times Respondents Thought
Household Members Visited Park This Year
12 and under 1 ,294
13-20 549
21-30 1 , 193
31-40 1 ,208
41-60 663
61 and over 185
7. How Respondents Visited Park
Alone 14
Friends 94
Family 53
Organization group 8 N = 169
8. What Respondents Liked Best About Park
Lake location - view 67
Natural surrounds 13
Quiet atmosphere 11
Good picnicking 11
Childs play area 10
Open space 10
Lakeside seating 8
Willow trees 7
Accessibility 7
Other 27 N = 171
Tabulation of Data - 2
9. What Respondents Liked Least About Park
Loud road groups 30
No swimming 20
Traffic speeds 11
Dirty lake - lagoon 11
Highway location 9
Crowds 7
Lack of maintenance 5
Difficult access* 5
No zoo 2
Other 53 N = 153
*We think respondents are referring to the new access road built as part of the
Niederkorn plan.
10. Number of Times Respondents Thought
Any Household Members Participated
in Activities Below at Stewart Park
Number of People Overall Times
1 ) Walking or jogging 128 1 ,317
2) Picnicking in pavilion 77 264
3) Picnicking in uncovered areas 122 737
4) Used children's play equipment 68 707
5) Lake viewing 164 1 ,686
6) Carousal rides 45 352
7) Fishing 10 167
8) Feed the ducks 99 778
9) Play softball , football , frisbee 86 347
10) Play tennis 15 66
11 ) Attend concert 48 70
12) Attend organization group event 86 157
13) Bicycling 40 242
14) Photography 46 138
11 . Do Respondents Think There Should
Be More, Less or About the Same Amount
of Following Facilities at Stewart Park
Actual Number
D.K+ Giving
More Same Less N.A. An Answer
1 ) Lakeside benches 84 88 3 172
2) Other benches 72 86 1 16 159
3) Lakeside picnic tables 86 75 4 10 165
4) Uncovered picnic tables 61 95 19 156
5) Covered picnic tables 33 96 8 38 137
6) Children 's play equipment 35 85 3 51 123
7) Duck feeding area 35 112 5 22 152
8) Fishing access 28 67 8 74 98
9) Open play areas, softball ,
football , soccer, frisbee 52 91 9 23 152
10) Tennis courts 25 80 10 30 115
11 ) Bicycle path 67 69 1 38 137
12) Group event facilities 37 97 4 37 138
13) Restrooms 102* 51 1 21 157
*Note that the only changes wanted by a majority are more restrooms. We suspect
they want "more ' restrooms because they consider the present ones unusable.
dC)
Tabulation of Data - 3
12. Are There Activities or Facilities Not Now
At Park Respondent Would Like to See There?
NO 92
YES 83 N = 175
Swimming 25
Boat rental 12
Zoo 9
Program events 20
Restaurant concession 8
Other 28
13. Respondent Grading of Aspects of Stewart Park
We think that Trowbridge in his "Survey Summary" has manipulated this data
against the intent of the respondents and against the obvious meaning
of the question itself. We have called a number of the respondents in
this survey and they all , unanimously and emphatically, have told
us that a grade of "C" means a passing grade; many called it a satisfactory
grade. They said it was against the meaning of their grading to
average "C" with failing marks of "D" and "F" as Trowbridge has done.
Question 13. "I 'm going to ask you about several aspects of Stewart Park,
and I would like you to give each aspect a grade, like school grades, where
A = Excellent, B = Above Average, C = Average, D = Below Average, and F =
Unsatisfactory. "
Actual Number
A&B C D&F D.K. Giving a Mark
1 ) Physical condition lake shoreline 63 60 48 4 171
2) Condition picnic area 115 45 3 12 163
3) Visual attractiveness park entrance 95 58 21 1 174
4) Visual attractiveness park buildings 66 81 21 7 168
5) Availability of picnic areas 122' 39 5 9 166
6) Condition duck pond 57 43 26 49 126
7) Condition lagoon area 54 46 23 52 123
8) Visual attractiveness parking areas 87 66 17 5 172
9) Condition restrooms 21 49 57* 48 127
10) Overall visual attractiveness park 143 26 5 1 174
11 ) Enforcement park regulations 59 33 23 60 115
*Note: Only one item in above list, "restrooms," has most grades in "D" and "F".
14. Are There Members of Respondents
Household Physically Handicapped
YES 9
NO 166 N = 175
Rating of Handicap Accessibility within Stewart Park
A - 3, B - 0, C - 2, D - 4, F - 0 N = 9
69
Tabulation of Data - 4
15. Are There Any Other Specific Improvements
You Would Like to See in Stewart Park
NO 63
YES 110 N = 173
Maintenance/appearance 50
Roadway, parking, traffic speed 24
Swimming 17
Control drinking, noise 16
Landscaping/screen parking 16
Pedestrian handicap access 9
We think it is inappropriate and that it distorts the data to lump
maintenance/appearance together as one category. Maintenance has to do
with things like "restrooms" which we know (from Questions 11 and 13)
almost everyone wants cleaned up and improved. Appearance has to do with
attractiveness of the park (which we know from Items 3, 4, 8 and 10 in
Question 13 are rated very highly by the respondents). To lump these
categories together is to put together something very desirable with
something very undesirable.
We think it inappropriate to lump together "roadway, parking, traffic
speed." They are separate categories. Lumping them together gives
them a misleadingly higher number than they would have separately.
qv
Did You Know That ITHACA JOURNAL
F:Park ER PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTM OF STEWART PARK July 16, 19, 1986
t 8.6 n0kx doYrs,fu c ng of vA**"wi be a major dmaerge
ears to come' and whieh is airwdr being knpiernented
minate the willow row(35 tress)west of the Stewart
lion because they are a"visual barrier"and"to r eflect a
differentiation of function and allow more informal planting
treatment"
2 and in the same general park area would create"man-made
hills-not more than 5fi feet high,""to relieve the flatness of the
terrain"?
alga ourpvdd an or wifte dw Mayor to Batt ttwpier
Cltrsans To Save Stewart pant 2 Hie+est Drive Idu ut.N.Y 147M
ITHACA JOURNAL,
Mr. Mayor, Common Council: July 23, 26 , 1986
We want the buildings, roadways,
landscaping and other facilities at
Stewart Park restored, renewed,
preserved and maintained.
Please do not alter, redesign, change,
restructure Stewart Park.*
As is proposed in your Master Plan to Improve
Stewart Park.
Citizens to Save Stewart Park 2 Hillcrest Drive,Ithaca,N.Y.
STEWART PARK ITHACA JOURNAL
July 28, 30, 1986
What right do the Mayor and Common Council
have to'lease"(which amounts to giving away)our
most beautiful lake frontage land(next to or part of
Stewart Park)to the Chamber of Commerce,a
private organization,so they can construct an office
building on it?
1.Write the Mayor or your alderman not to let the
Chamber of Commerce build their headquarters at
Stewart Park.The vote comes up August 6.
2.Read the letter by Sally Grubb,Director of the Ithaca
Festival in the Ithaca Times,July 24.
3.Sign our petition to halt the plan to alter Stewart Park
itizens to Save Stewart Park 2 Hillcrest Drive,Ithaca,N.Y.
ITHACA JOURNAL
STEWART PARK _:ugus t 4 , 6 , 1 9%36
The City Planning Department signed a contract July
3 with Peter Trowbridge,landscape architect,to work
on the"Niederkorn Plan,"(the masterplan to alter
Stewart Park).The contract is not clear on what Mr.
Trowbridge is to do. Is he to change the plan? Is he to
make working drawings to implement it? Has he been
hired to make a new plan altogether?We think the
public should know.
Don't city officials see how beautiful the park is now?
Don't they realize redesigning can destroy this
beauty?
Sign our petition to stop altering Stewart Park.
Citizens to Save Stewart Park 2 Hillcrest Drive,Ithaca,N.Y.
STEWART PARK ITHACA JOURNAL
Mr. Mayor, Common Council: u August 11, 14 , 1986
Instead of imposing drastic changes on Stewart Park
at a cost of 5.5 million dollars(as proposed in the Master
Plan to alter Stewart Park approved by you), why don't
you put our park in decent shape? Why don't you put
some real sand in the children's sandbox, oil the swings,
put down some speed bumps, repair the pavilions, clean
up the lagoon and duck pond and shoreline, etc.? Why
don't you restore swimming in the lake at Stewart Park?
The 5 ft 10 milers, all 600 of them, ran a good race
Sunday. The Master Plan will eliminate their route in
Stewart Park.
Contributions to Save Stewart Park and help pay
for these ads should be sent to:
Citizens to Save Stewart Park 2 Hillcrest Drive,Ithaca,N.Y.
STEWART PARK Ithaca Journal
Mr. Mayor, Common Council: We do not think it proper for the August 18 , 21 , 19-36
city to"lease"our most beautiful lake frontage land at Stewart
Park to the Chamber of Commerce to construct an office
building.
1. This is exactly the kind of central city evacuation the city
should be fighting to stop not implement
Z The Chamber is a lobby group for business and in the past has
tried to form a local Political Action Committee.
3. "Leasing to build"amounts to giving the land away(or buying
a building we don't need if we ever decide to end the lease).
4. We don't want our beautiful vistas at Stewart Park obstructed
by yet another building:we think the present small tourist infor-
mation booth with volunteers and telephone provided by
R.S.V.P.is just fine.
If you want these ads to continue and help'Save Stewart Park
send contributions to:
Citizens to Save Stewart Park 2 Hillcrest Drive,Ithaca,N.Y.
L
ITHACA JOJRiNr.T,
Augus l
STEWART PARK ��
t
STEWART PARK STILL NEEDS SAVING
The Journal editorial August 19 falsely accused us(among
other things)of inventing"untrue""horror stories"in saying
Common Council has approved the Master Plan to alter
Stewart Park at a cost of$5.5 million dollars and that the plan
is being implemented.The"horror"is that everything we
have said is true and can be documented so.
Common Council did approve in concept the Master Plan to
alter Stewart Park.(see Common Council Proceedings,Jan.Z,
1985 pp 1415).The Plan is being implemented:(Master Plan
items 1-5,7-9,15,16,18,20,22 listed on pages 8491 have been
started or completed.)The"horror"is that 5.5 million is
"magnitude-of-cost estimates only(and)do not take inflation
into account."(p.83 Master Plan)
Support us against these falsehoods.Support us in our
campaign to save Stewart Park.
Citizens to Save Stewart Park 2 Hillcrest Drive,Ithaca,N.Y.
STEWART PARK Se.f:t 8 ,"i�I, ,i 8T
6
"WE LIKE IT THE WAY IT IS"
"WHY CHANGE IT?"
Over four thousand people(so far)have signed our petition
urging the Mayor and Common Council to discard their plan
to alter Stewart Park at great expense and instead to adopt a
resolution to maintain, preserve and restore the park and its
facilities.
Again and again people say:
"We like it just the way it is."
"Why is it being changed?"
"Why spend millions for something we don't want?"
If you don't want the park drastically changed tell your
alderman. Remind him he's an elected official. Sign our
petition.
If you want to help with these ads send contributions to:
Citizens to Save Stewart Park 2 Hillcrest Drive,Ithaca,N.Y.
ITHACx JOURNAL,
STEWART PARK Sept. 26 , 1986
Please return all signed petitions to us immediately.
We plan to present them to the Mayor at Common
Council meeting Wednesday, October 1. We will
continue to collect signatures after that and continue
to welcome your many letters and other gestures of
support until we are assured that Stewart Park is
saved from being redesigned.
Citizens to Save Stewart Park 2 Hillcrest Drive,Ithaca,N.Y.
STEWART PARK
We are some of the thousands of people who have signed
the petition below.
Judy Holiday Peter Harriott Robert L. Boothroyd
Don Wilkinson Mary K. Johnson Doris M. Schooley
ITHACA JOUR TAL Dooley Kiefer Dorothy Pomponio Mrs. Joseph Daino
Sept. 15 & 19, 1986 June S. Protts Harold Cornelius Elinore W. Sly
Joe Cioschi Anne G. Baldwin Mary Ellen Buyoucos
Martha Ferger Grigor Grigorov Mrs. Walter C. Heasley
George Sheldon Margaret Feldman Holly Van Sciver
David Fogel Charles Peorman Camille Tischler .
Erica Weiss Claire Tallman Phil 8 Nenetzin White
ingeborg Wald Christian Otto Andy 8 Jean McElwee
Dan McCall Patricia Stone M. Harlow 8 Vicky Dean
Reeve Parker Harold Shadick Robert 8 Mabel Beggs
Beth Lordan Deena Schwartz Victoria Romanoff
Fran Morris Patricia Smith Nancy Biggerstoff
John R. Simon Carol Ornstein Nancy SoItonstall
Heather Dunbar Audrey O'Connor Frances H. Geherin
Cornelia Hill Mortie W. Young C.J. Anagnost
Carol Oldfield Kevin A. Tanner Victoria A. Anagnost
Jane McCarthy Vincent Mulcahy George 8 Pat Brampton
Tom Riemers Wendy Robertson Brenda Baldwin Wallace
Leonard Mirin Joel Rabinowitz Donald W. Dickinson
Kathy Lilley Peggy Petrillose Leonard 8 lone Buyse
Joan Sokow Jeanette Knowles Carol Felton Schmitt
Alice E. Reid Helen Mongerugo Ronald D. Schmitt
J.O. Mahoney Salvatore Grippi June Murray Williams
Walter Slatoff Katherine Durant David 8 Sally Grubb
Joanne Florino Lois Fogelsonger H. Peter&Ruth Kahn
Petition to the Mayor and Common Council Not to
Impose Drastic Changes on Stewart Park
We do not want the willow row (35 trees) west of the
Pavilion cut down.page 65*
We do not want three large asphalt parking lots con-
structed, the largest of which will be larger than the lot
behind Woolworths.page 18*
We do not want ail roads within the park removed. page
17*
We do not want man-made hills created "to relieve the
flatness of the terrain."page 64*
We do not want to spend 5.5 million dollars for such items.
page 92*
Although a few of the proposals in the plan would improve,
the majority would damage the park and, because these
worst proposals have the highest priority (the large parking
lot is next to be built), we do not think there is time to win-
now out the bad from the good.
Accordingly, we the undersigned respectfully urge the
Mayor and Common Council to show they are sufficiently
highminded to reverse a decision when the common good is
involved, and that they discard the master plan to alter
Stewart Park and halt any further implementation of that
plan and not try to salvage it which might make it even
worse.
We urge proper maintenance, preservation and restoration
of existing building, roads, landscaping and other facilities in
the park.
Signature
Printed Name Address
*Master Plan for Improvement of the Stewart Park Complex
approved in concept by Ithaca Common Council January 2,
1985.
Citizens to Save Stewart Park Z Hillcrest Drive,Ithaca,N.Y.
H you agree with us,sign above,clip and .
send to above address
1.
z+h�,cGJournGl
STEWART PARK s, , q g
IF YOU DON'T WANT STEWART PARK REDESIGNED
Attend Common Council meeting Wednesday,
November 5, 7:30 p.m. Common Council
Chambers, City Hall (opposite Woolworths on
Green Street)
A vote about the Plan to Alter Stewart Park will
be taken. It is important to show those on
Common Council against the plan our support.
You don't have to say anything —just be there.
If you can't attend call your elected aldermen
and let them know how you stand on this issue.
Citizens to Save Stewart Park 2 Hillcrest Drive,Ithaca,N.Y.