HomeMy WebLinkAboutStewart Park Design Plan - Public Comment - 07-09-1987 p - 17 ,
STEWART PARK
DESIGN PLAN
PUBLIC
COM " ENT
JULY 9, 1987
rte'
June 16 , 1437
1rowbrid ;e-Irowbri age
1345 i, ecklenburg load
Ithaca, n.I . 14350
dentlernen :
iv husband and 1 would like to express our opinion on
your road planning ing for stewart park.
Ie feel that it would be dangerous especially when
to road would be very narrow and in some places having;
parkin; on both sides.
,e cannot understand when over seven thousand signatures
were collected to leave the park alone with the exception
of keeping the ground beautiful and the buildings in top
shape .
The park was given to us to enjoy so why are there a hand-
ful of people trying to do what they want with the park.
very truly yours,
0 fi ✓tea-w/"
Vicky and narlow Jean
605 N . fioga at .
Ithaca, N . Y. 14,350
cc : iviayor dutenburger
•
426 N. Titus Avenue
Ithaca, New York 14850
17 June 1987
Trowbridge & Trowbridge,
Landscape Architects
1345 Mecklenburg Road
Ithaca, New York 14850
Dear Sirs:
I would like to register an opinion regarding plans for the alteration of
Stewart Park. As one who has had much enjoyable use of the park in its
present condition for a number of years, I feel most strongly that it is
certainly best left in that condition. Any willful action to alter it would
be for the worse, despite the best intentions. I have been informed that
one of the less sweeping changes is the substantial narrowing of the road
that loops through the park; even here, a less desirable and, as I
understand it, potentially hazardous traffic situation could result.
Probably the only positive change that might be made--and here only if it
does not cause inconvenience to those who enjoy Stewart Park--is the
repair of some of the pavilions, preferably without anachronistic stylistic
alteration. The best solution, however, in my estimation, is to leave
Stewart Park alone; its already a great asset to the area. Thank you.
Cordially,
if-dePf-f. .g411/5
Robert E. Seletsky
DAVi?)?kNether,-Photo a tier, Ithaca 74.i . !4850
t'c!, 6o7 271 2451 •
Q\tc. `,cowerl
t.
t. AS ttt.s� rwt •
�ets �tS\cue-:mac \\0,, eo.f\• vecfNle■S v :S c\t excess.'Vc�
t, Clt .n- • " — L: 'lsc £ \'L S4c C (L\ '4`*be C
\)It\ ;.Win �� � . ,.: a t� Y•r•�' �y:l r�
te, ` h ;�; � ,`r. ;► st,,+. is
•
•r `•t etc cQ k.t ■• .oY'\\:• ee...4.4% tC V, Is'
o41s. �u4
%.v.4{Np.■(:` C`r.1,11/4. ert .•$• _Wtt t • 4;*t. '
`� ` c� t4 441. „C\A.4•∎Cet,s\„ ■ CO �' C^•►t<. �^ a,,V.03.* :z.•?!SL.'. r,Nq • •c1/4\41
\e, • a .4K'N• .: it , . �.: r� sr\•:•, Aft •N AS
vo.3 > • eNre S.G t4 tr.1 ctis..\ .
\,.44^AsZ•t:.4., • • e 14,..7%%\aXIticS
•t �� S \41)\ma y 14,•0•1c\t‘4‘\1k
■\��►�cc % •N►S. C R044 te tattetr 41 c44' . t� S `V"• Lv :S:yh
s
wee�1. ,%_ Cia�.r"o,n w��� QK:� Cr vw�. �e�... e�!qv�QS
\ 41∎4. •∎•A CAS WN• NAda■cc0Ml `Ages ls 1, s
1w
r
w
\LY` \\t°S\ tvSeAkr gftl Sc∎ t art. \\•%. �v' � S . o ho•cww
\c::Sk c1\..n � CQL• &S Cnl v <v "\1.t, ft-tic QCs
\ \•\'‘.. �''%\trfe r . gut ""V„ . ' : '
sc%27 S\-44>\k‘\\\I eq \'‘ Crt. s CM a rwhi:44.. c_v.ae C`\4 Zt\ok 4,‘
"\\S .. C\'160L.V.. elilf; . • 1 •
r:
• /
`fit 1\ t`•.14 °Mt4 • c°‘" c• ■ \e. - . ' ' .
C•n\:NINUovs 4 ç \ d4
S w
t
t t..KNX to'kt .c :.• (',.r. \\MV91111 %r. 4,A r, e
'c . `t . ,.0.r t \'• ..'N ,..e."4,..-7 L\ Lae.k ct` \�
e'4, '( "\14\'441.° a
• cd'Cc -\p.0 li. 3:444.; 64) -',•,. • x:s■`''::- ( . \'''\V,%. Q t '
, vis ' ,,,,,N,%. 1-,,,ares,,,,• ...---7- Ntet.. 1,CLItN,-. \,,4. . •••fj."ois‘?..\ ci; :ktit... -
, • P� �� �_ ` •�4 "►,qty « J 0
\7 th S c.a. �n 1 --1)c CktAkt,
\,,
'►" \A.-.1v b iC
r • • 4'. T 1 w• •
4. ''.1 '''• 44.).,1 ..r*4. ' ' •''.1--------) .\," A . , ,, Ao 4.
'D. e-TV -----e)2u QY— •
4
E e l We r Y e- f !6r)A , ti i loth '} ,,i S•- ii • ,,o+ , . Y tr?`e...-J . 'I h.L. t .-%
11.4.$..u S r.ii s �.• '(•rte Lr, .�wyN. • - d ' Ci¢.G� r�4.. . • ii 1'0.4,--. ` '..41. ' ic:
. - .' 23 June 1987 4°---1 !. ','r:e . (R. '' ■ t?�:e �>ow4- e
To: Peter Trowbridge, Designer • • .
Stwart Park Design Planner
1345 Mecklenburg Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
From: Roger H. Farrell Rop..` ("( • ae -
. Le Moyne A. Farrell 2°&11, (,/; AiV✓h-
120 Eastwood Terrace
Ithaca, NY 14850
Subject: Survey of Park Use:Sunday, 21 June 1987
Conversation with Users about Park Improvement Plans
Suggestion for Waterfowl Pond
Reaction: -Mending of Park Footbridge is needed now because boards
flex dangerously.
-Park is being used to capacity now that permits various
groups access to facilities without impinging. These '
are: family groups, fisherfolk, drinkers/partiers/barbecuers,
party-residents of upper porch of Boathouse(we were told
the "mayor' s cousin" lives there) , Cascadilla Scull Rowers ,
wild life observers of Sanctuary or swan pond, and child-
ren in play area. fv fovJe(�c� bra t
-"No Wake" speed zone signage is needed„at entrance to Fall
Creek in 'both•directions. Trees around golf course and
in Sanctuary shield Fall Creek from prevailing winds which
makes sculling in rough weather permissable on Fall Creek.
Scullers say no improvement is needed.. to .the landing, that
willows there provide protection from erosion and wind.
They like gabions because plants on Fall creek would entangle
oars. They object to resident partiers in Boat House to which
they'd like minimal renovations like gym upstairs for indoor
training of adult and young rowers in bad weather.
-Signage OK as is . None to Sanctuary, especially, though
trail bike stiles are needed to prevent path erosion and
undergrowth destruction.
- Concern: Ithaca park users can have a rough edge, and pretti-
tying this area with old lamposts and pergolas might bring
out the graffitti spray cans with a vengeance. There ' s a
live-and-let-live attitude there now that may be quite fragile
which is important to maintain for acceptance of the free-
dom that the park provides . THose questioned mentioned that
they had signed the petition last year to prevent revision
. to the park and had thought that that was the end of it. They
seemed surprised that it was still an issue.
-Rubbish behind Boathouse (old fencing, a refrigerator door) needs
removal .
-DPW' s effort to keep park clear appeared heroic on Sunday, for
the litter at Creek, Lagoon, and Lake edges was minimal , sur-
prising because the _week had been clear and the Park must have
• alrea. been used- on Saturday as well. - Kudos goes the .the
DPW staff as well as to Park users which may imply how the
Park is valued as it remains now. Women S jons appeared clean
and functioning. .
-2-
Trowbridge Plan
Suggestion: -Waterfowl/Swan Pond: This needs regular skimming of
algae. THe female swan was sitting on an egg and was
unfortunately disturbed by our intrusion. A family of
mallards was on the penisula, and the male swan appeared
not to be harrassing them at the time.
-Signage is needed: not to feed the birds with the
reason provided, i.e, polluting the waters 'with
botulism. The sign there--"Beware the Swan" not
only is clear; it works .- and is needed! He' s fierce!
The present sign on not feeding is too tall and
is hidden by shrubbery.
-Fencing: To protect both people and the swans, the
fence needs to be higher and mended as is , if users
of the park are not to harass the swans .
-Water clarity: Perhaps a circulation system could
be devised by a graduate student in Biology or
Natural Resources to improve the circulation of
water which appears unhealthy and stagnant . It
needs to circulate fresh water more regularly and
to be stocked with frogs , oxygen-promoting plants ,
and small fish.
Remedying this area might be the project of a graduate student in Natural
Resources or Biology.
Conclusion: Stewart Park is quite functional as it is, aside from mending
the footbridge over Fall Creek and clarifying water by
skimming algae regularly from Swan Pond and increasing
flow of fresh water and aquatic life.
Diverse human elements enjoy the rough edges and wilderness-
feeling provided by the huge trees and Sanctuary, Freedom for
all users seems the atmosphere without groups ' interfer ing.
Minor renovation to the Boathouse can aid in Sculling Club' s
development and render it fit for club activities now being
extending to adult and young rowers. No improvement to the
Boathouse Dock is needed or wanted by the Clup at this time.
More furnishings to the park, like chair or boat rental , would
necE6sitate concessions and complicate clean-up. As it is now,
fisherfolk, barbecuers, picknickers pick up and leave. The
lawns are then free to mow, clean, etc. Maintainance at this
time seems to work well and the Park does not seem to need
improvement.
Prettifying or rebuilding the park and its grounds seems to
spend money that the users do not ask for and which, in fact,
may cause some to feel hostile about spoiling the present
rustic, and a bit rough, scene that many appreciate deeply.
a
1Tx9�
ft
��
'1 I ii1711„0
=cps.. "or,'
CITY OF ITMACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITMACA, NEW YORK 14850
OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272-1713
MAYOR CODE 607
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Peter Trowbridge
FROM: Mayor John C. Gutenberger
DATE: June 24,1987
RE: Comments on Appendix to Stewart Park Design Plan Manual
Your proposed appendix is excellent and, I believe, really makes sense
out of the vast array of topics that have been discussed these many months.
The appendix (as finally adopted) will serve as a true planning & development
document for future decisions.
I do have a few comments, however:
1. Improvement of the bathrooms and re-location of the concession
stand seems to be omitted. I assume these items would fall under
the heading of "pavilion restoration" but perhaps they should be
mentioned.
2. "Relocate tennis courts" shows up in both Stage One and Stage
Three. This is confusing.
3. Perhaps under Stage One an item should be added such as "develop
a coordinated design detail program" which would consider and
recommend a uniform (and appropriate) signage system, style of
lighting fixtures, furniture styles, etc.
4. Will the suggested fishing decks in lagoon interfere with ice
skating in the winter time?
5. I am confused about Area "N" where in Stage One it talks about
removing asphalt from between pavilions and re-seeding this area
and then in Stage Three it is suggested to construct a central
courtyard. Shouldn't construction of the new courtyard be in
Stage One?
An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
Memo to Peter Trowbridge
June 24, 1987
Page 2
6. Area "A" cost figures do not agree on summary page and detail
page ($378,281,000 vs. $377,691,000) .
7. To my untrained eye (and mind) the addition of so many new items
seems a little overwhelming. Adding up the items I come up with
226 additional trees, 110 additional picnic tables and 65 additional
benches.
8. Lastly - you have still not convinced me on a few items.
a. I don't think we should narrow the width of the roads.
b. I'm not sure the bridge to the island in the duck pond
is a good idea. Perhaps the island should be "peopleless".
c. The Pergola connecting the two pavilions may block views and
may not really add that much to the park.
I want to commend you and your staff for an excellent report. It will
aid us greatly in the decision making process.
C/2s
f-:
- : 5te.14 is i a k
Qi P,Le,n, rv�
to - t- `
5 7h-o-c) 1)K_,t-.0
Qs-Lc-51kt s ce,5. to /10
T�,wk s C • rikac►tite►.w
6 C1AAA, . ',;r1,6.4,<±ttflAptke._
TiL --Uht.L4
4 '
oA At - -
� • � G lA etL
;0 q)3Lt-R eAA (4)0 att
N
-A- Q fT
. X.t ......if11 i� 1%
? --- !
:coq « Q`
!°�D/1A7fc=-
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14650
TELEPHONE: 272-1713
COMMON COUNCIL CODE 607
' 0s Trowbridge •`Tr�owbridge , Landscape Architects
FT?ON`: Dan Hoffman •`�.`.�s
DATE; June 26, 1987
iE; Comments on Stewart Park Design Plan Manual
The latest plan for Stewart Park has obviously been affected
by the heated public reaction to the previous Master Plan. The
scale of changes proposed in this plan is considerably reduced,
and the basic layout of the park is retained.
Even so , this plan suggests 125 separate actions/changes ,
costing almost $4 million and affecting virtually every corner
of the park. This degree .of change is not consistent with the
overwhelming public sentiment favoring the park "as it is."
Also , considering the great amount of use the park now gets , at
least during times of mild weather, I don't think it is necessary
or desirable to add features to the park that will attract even
more intense use . Stewart Park is most valuable as a green , un-
cluttered open space for unstructured use and enjoyment.
Here are some specific reactions to the draft plan:
1 . The double fence enclosing the railroad tracks seems unnecessary
and potentially unattractive .
2. I have no objection to removing the tennis courts from the west
field , thereby enhancing its open feeling, but I wonder if the pro-
posed new location will spoil the vista of grass and lake from the
new Youth Facility. Does interest in playing tennis at the park
justify construction of a new facility, which stands out with its
high fence and takes space from other uses? In any case , I support
the removal of the excessively broad expanse of asphalt that now
exists at the "elbow" of the roadway.
3. I 'm not convinced that the new layout of the roadway and parking
system is an improvement . The constant alternating of wide and narrow
sections seems less safe and makes the road seem less like a park
boulevard and more like a series of small parking lots. While there
are some problems with the present parallel parking system, I find
perpendicular parking and backing into traffic more worrisome .
4. Piers have an intrinsic charm, but on the relatively small lake-
front of Stewart Park, a wide��;ticentrally located one such as proposed
in this plan could dominate and detract from the striking view of
Cayuga Lake . Construction of such a pier seems like a very low priority
to Me , compared to saving the present park buildings.
5. The bird sanctuary gate seems large and imposing - and unnecessary;
we needn't feel obliged to draw attention to every feature of the park;
some things we can letfblks figure out on their own.
6 . The proposed lagoon pavillion and associated uses would represent
greatly intensified use . Having it overhang the water invites main-
tenance headaches. The fishing platforms strike me as unnecessary.
7, I am skeptical that the proposed formal garden is the best
use of space in a park that must serve so many people . Could
something on a smaller scale be substituted for or even combined
with the "Art in the Park" circle?
8. The formal pathways (lined with benches) that connect the main
pavillion complex with the tea pavillion and the garden look neat
and symmetrical on an aerial perspective , but at ground level they
interrupt what is now a very open greenspace that people feel free
to wander through.
9 . I support the restoration of the dance pavillion, rehabilita-
tion of the picnic pavillion, relocation of the concession stand
and the replacement of the parking lot between the pavillions with
a community courtyard and performance space . If those steps are
taken, I 'm not convinced the pergola is necessary. Also , steps
from the courtyard. represent a barrier.
10. I don't think the park needs additional lighting, and I am
strongly opposed to the bollard designs suggested in the plan.
11 . Open areas should not be cluttered with more barbecues. They
interfere with some other uses and are unused and unattractive
most of the year. The west field especially should be kept open.
12 . Shoreline treatment must be done very carefully. I now see that
the gabions were a mistake . I am therefore suspicious of the rip-
rap, bulkheads and concrete walls proposed for various points .
Gradual sloping of the waterfront sounds like a better approach.
13. I support the careful cleaning of the duckpond, but not drastic
changes to its surroundings. For me , the overgrown pathway around
the duckpond is a quiet, little-used place of refuge . Removal of
vegetation, "improvement" of the path, or creating a uniform shore-
line with rip-rap would destroy its present charm. Construction of
an overlook deck strikes me as another example of overdevelopment .
The tiny island in the pond would be quickly trampled and "trashed"
if a bridge were provided for it. Likewise , I fear that the massive
deck proposed between the boathouse and the pond would focus too
much attention (and litter) on an area supposedly intended for wild-
life . I do agree , however, that the boathouse should be restored
for community use .
14. The attempt to restore naturalistic wetland vegetation is crea-
tive and sensible . I hope it can be implemented.
The Trowbridge plan obviously represents much thoughtful study
and consideration. Most of its components are not unattractive ,
if judged in isolation, but taken as a whole package they represent
certain assumptions about the future of the park, such as the desrir-
ability of creating new attractions and intensified use , and greater
separation of activity areas , and the need to "improve" most areas of
the park. Because of time constraints I have concentrated on my
disagreements with the plan. Many of my disagreements are based on
the fact that I do not share these underlying assumptions. Even so ,
I hope you will be able to consider each of my comments on its own
merits , as you put together your final plan.
Thank you for soliciting our reactions .
cc & Common Council
Mayor Gutenberger
SPAG
Citizens to Save Stewart Park
om ; st4.44 t J Lt k «I i'r
June 26, 1987
2 Hillcrest Drive
Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
Dear Mr. Mayor, members of SPAG, Common Council and others:
We welcome being asked to submit our comments on the Trowbridge Stewart
Park Design Manual (draft copy) to you and attached is an evaluation of it with our
recommendations.
While we appreciate the care and conscientiousness with which Mr.
Trowbridge and staff have prepared this Plan we feel there are too many proposals
in it which would diminish the beauty and enjoyability of the park for it to be
accorded blanket approval.
According to planning and traffic experts whom we have consulted both
locally and at Syracuse and Harvard Universities and at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, the proposed roadway with perpendicular parking, represents bad
engineering and could be dangerous.
There are many proposals which would unnecessarily disrupt established
activities at the park. For instance, it is unlikely the Duck Pond could survive as a
wildlife habitat if the Trowbridge proposals are implemented. We do not see how
approval of such items could be justified.
We think the two enormous signs proposed for the entrance to the park
exemplify pervasive characteristics of the plan: there are two when one would do;
they are large — each the size of a billboard — and seem to serve as barriers; they are
out of keeping with the character of the park; they perform an unnecessary function
— advertising the park; they are expensive; and they would effectively hide much of
what is one of the anticipatory joys in approaching the park — seeing the lovely
expansive view of the lake through the willow trees.
We look forward to seeing many of you again at meetings about this matter
which is so close to the heart of this community.
With best wishes to all of you,
Citizens to Save Stewart Park
by Doria Higgins
Personal Comments on the Stewart Park Design Plan Manual
Barbara E. Ebert
June 26, 1987
Page 2
In conclusion, I would like to comment on the Stewart Park Advisory
Group' s role in this process. This mayor-appointed committee is
composed of an unknown (to me) number of individuals representing
various interest groups and the city. It is notable that a majority
of the group are either employed by the city or serve as appointed
members of other city committees. This would tend to produce a
"representative sampling" focused on the city' s desires, which may or
may not be in line with the public' s desires. Until the meeting of
June 11, 1987, the majority of the Stewart Park Advisory Group had not
met; previous SPAG meetings were called belatedly or were just poorly
attended. At that June meeting two new members were appointed to the
group, at what seemed to be the penultimate moment--our 'going out of
business sale. ' So, meeting for the first time as a organized group,
we were asked to think and vote as if we had had regular meetings and
were all equally familiar with the material at hand.
The process of study and production of the Stewart Park Design Plan
Manual has taken many .montbs, and the process of review of the Plan
was given just one night. Fortunately, members of the Stewart Park
Advisory Group felt that this was not adequate time, and discussion
and possible decision was postponed for several weeks. Hopefully,
this next SPAG meeting will not be the last, for this proposal needs a
great deal more attention and serious discussion.
Thank you for this opportunity to present written comments to be
incorporated into the final Design Plan document.
It -Rit.&, E• bt 4--
Barbara E. Ebert
r
June 26, 1987
Personal Comments on the Stewart Park Design Plan Manual
by Barbara E. Ebert, member of the Stewart Park Advisory Group and
Executive Director of Historic Ithaca, Inc.
As a resident of the City of Ithaca, a member of the Stewart Park
Advisory Group, and someone who has participated in public and private
comment sessions on the Trowbridge Design Plan, I felt it necessary to
comment on this proposal outside of my official capacity as Director
of Historic Ithaca. In preparing Historic Ithaca' s comments I felt it
was appropriate to cover areas of specific concern to that
preservation organization; in my personal comments I wish to address
other issues of concern.
My first point--and one which I made during public comment sessions--
is my concern that the Design Plan is overplanned, placing too much
emphasis on setting up areas for specific activities, special
facilities for everyone' s whim and fancy, and crowding the park with
what appears to be, "in concept, " more of everything. One gets that
the impression that the plan allows for volleyball only in the
volleyball area, fishing only from the fishing decks, and strolling
only on the prescribed paths. The public comments received over the
past few months and the results of Trowbridge' s own survey appear to
have fallen upon deaf ears; what happened to maintenance and nicer
restrooms? Obviously Trowbridge' s firm felt that the public should
get more for its dollars--but more than it wanted? Worse still, the
public was not even given what it requested, as there is no
maintenance plan and better restrooms are years down the road.
As to roads, while it is a great relief that the circulation pattern
remains much as it is after hours of public debate, the current
proposal to remove 232,000 square feet of asphalt at a cost of
$290,000 seems ludicrous when accompanied by the proposal to put in
more than 4700 linear feet of asphalt at a cost of $309, 365. What
would the city be buying for this half of a million dollars? I
believe, as do others, that the proposed parking lots and decreased
road widths are a threat to public safety in the park. Before
tampering with the broad avenues of the park, attention should be
given to the concerns of parents, cyclists, joggers, and persons who
stroll the park. If these people feel threatened by the decreased
road widths as proposed in the Design Plan, then perhaps the designer
should listen and act accordingly.
At every point at which the Trowbridge firm went beyond its
contractual obligation to provide the city with detail--for example,
the light fixtures, the proposed pavilion design, the "restoration"
views--they appear to have made inappropriate or stock selections.
The majority of these items could not be properly discussed during the
final public comment session, although there appears to be a growing
consensus on the inappropriateness of several of these choices.
Although the Stewart Park Advisory Group has been told repeatedly that
to approve the Design Plan is to approve "its concept only, " the fact
that the details will, thereby, also be approved "in concept" is very
disagreeable to me.
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF THE TROWBRIDGE STEWART PARK
DESIGN PLAN MANUAL (Draft Copy)
Including Recommendations and Suggestions
CITIZENS TO SAVE STEWART PARK
June 1987
2 Hillcrest Drive
Ithaca,N.Y.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD 1
OUR BASIC POSITION CONCERNING TROWBRIDGE DESIGN PLAN 2
INTRODUCTION 3
PART I
SPECIFIC PROPOSALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS -- Only selected items are dealt
with and only in broad terms. Omission from list does not imply
approval.
Roadways 4
Restoration of Existing Buildings 5
Duck Pond and Recontouring and New Deck and Island 6
Lagoon and Lagoon Pavilion and Boat Dock and Fishing Piers 7
Plantings 8
Fall Creek Regrading 9
Fuertes Bird Sanctuary Gate 9
Waterfront Pier 10
The Waterfront Bulge 10
Playground 10
West Field Change of Usage 11
Lighting -- Bollards and Street Lamps 11
Park Entrance Sign 12
PART II
Lost Pleasures and Upheaval of Park Usage 13
PART III
CRITICAL COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC PROPOSALS AS THEY APPEAR IN
MANUAL 15
PART IV
OVERALL RECOMMENDATION OF CITIZENS TO SAVE STEWART PARK. 21
PART V
MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION 22
MAINTENANCE AND MATERIALS 22
1
FOREWORD
Park Beautiful--Redesign Could Damage
We appreciate being asked to submit our comments and suggestions
•
about the Trowbridge Stewart Park Design Plan Manual.
We think the park is a place of great natural beauty with an elegant
simplicity of design elements -- roadways, trees, lawn -- which permit a free
and easy flow of human activity and enjoyment of lake, hills and sky. Arch
Mackenzie, Associate Professor of Architecture at Cornell has written about
the components of the park: "It would be easy to disturb these delicate
features by even a few ill-considered improvements."
"Why Is It Being Redesigned?"
In three months last summer over 7,000 members of the community
signed our petition urging proper maintenance, preservation and restoration
of the park and requesting that redesigning be stopped. Over and over again
those people asked us, "Why is Stewart Park being redesigned when it doesn't
need it and people like it the way it is?"
•
2
BASIC POSITION OF CITIZENS TO SAVE STEWART PARK WITH REGARD
TO THE TROWBRIDGE STEWART PARK DESIGN PLAN MANUAL (Draft
Copy)
Past Year and Common Council
Over the past year we and all those who signed our petition have
strongly urged and supported any plans to properly maintain, preserve and
restore the park. We think Common Council recognized the wishes of the
community with their December 3, 1986 Resolution which instructed that
"any proposed design development should reflect as accurately as possible the
expressed concern of the community to restore, preserve and maintain the
character of Stewart Park."
Trowbridge Plan a Redesign Plan
Mr. Trowbridge paid lip service to that resolution by stating in his
manual "Three fundamental principles form the basis of the 1987 Stewart
Park Design Plan: MAINTENANCE, PRESERVATION AND
RESTORATION." But he did not carry out that promise and instead has
presented a plan in which those principles are violated by almost every item
proposed.
His plan is not a maintenance or preservation or restoration plan. It is
clearly a redesign. plan.
Overdevelopment of Park
It is a plan which presents an extraordinary over-development of the
park and an overwhelming proliferation of proposals. Items which we might
have supported individually become by sheer numbers undesirable. For
example: we do not think the parks needs, as Mr. Trowbridge proposes, 226
new trees, 620 new bushes and 3,500 square feet of perennials and ornamental
grasses. And there are a number of proposals which alone and by themselves
would destroy or impair or duffer beauty which is in the park.
Upsets Present Usage
The Trowbridge plan upsets present usage of space in the park with
proposals which allocate or constrict or prohibit usage of space now freely
available. His park has, to an alarming extent, lost the commodious and
accommodating quality of the park we now enjoy.
Serious Maintenance Problems
And finally it is a plan which would present enormous maintenance
problems to a park which even now is in need of proper maintenance.
3
INTRODUCTION
Evaluation Not Comprehensive
Our evaluation is by no means comprehensive. We have not
evaluated all of the proposals presented by Mr. Trowbridge, nor have we
examined all of the ramifications of those proposals which we have
evaluated. We should point out that omission of a proposal from our
discussion in no way implies approval of the proposal by us.
Disturbing Items Chosen
We have chosen for analysis those items which seem most destructive
to the present good functioning and beauty of the park and from those items
we have especially chosen those whose implementation is scheduled "to
begin immediately."
Concern About Maintenance Budget Items
It is important to note that the Trowbridge Appendix says that some of
these items "fit into the annual operating budget allocated for the park's
maintenance." Thus if the overall Trowbridge plan is approved "in concept"
these items would not need further view by either Common Council or
Budget and Allocation Committee.
. , 4
SPECIFIC PROPOSALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ROADWAYS
Present Roads Fine
We think the present roadway and parking system is aesthetically
pleasing, efficient and elastically accommodating for special occasions such as
the Ithaca Festival and July Fourth flare ceremony. It tactfully lets the hard
rock, stereo set separate themselves from quieter lake watchers. It has proven
itself to be safe.
Trowbridge Proposals Inappropriate
The Trowbridge plan of spacing intermittent parking along a narrow
roadway, a principle he used in Collegetown, is not appropriate for Stewart
Park. The present diffused line of parallel parking along the roadway is much
less visually obtrusive and objectionable than would be the intermittent
perpendicular parking areas he proposes.
Will Congest Parking
His plan of drastically reducing the width of the present roads -- the
spacious Southern Loop to a mere 16 feet and all other roads to a mere 22 feet
-- and curtailing parking only to designated spots will undoubtedly cause
congestion and most especially cause congestion along the lakefront exactly
where we don't want it. Along the lakefront Mr. Trowbridge proposes
perpendicular parking on both sides of these narrowed roads. While there is
perpendicular parking now at the lakefront it is on only one side of a spacious
road and, because parking is permitted elsewhere all through the park, it
doesn't congest at the lakefront. Under the Trowbridge Plan more than half
of all possible parking will be at the lakefront. Such congestion is aesthetically
and emotionally unpleasing.
Experts Say Dangerous
We have talked to a number of planning and traffic officials both
locally and at Syracuse and Harvard Universities and at the U.S. Department
of Transportation. Across the board these experts have said that
perpendicular parking on both sides of a one way 16 foot road is bad
engineering and dangerous. The Transportation and Traffic Engineering
Handbook published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers recommends an
"aisle", a road, of 25 feet if parking is to be perpendicular.
We do not see how SPAG or Common Council or this city could justify
demolishing a road system which is pleasing and efficient and safe, to build
another system which is inefficient and unpleasing and dangerous, and do so
at expense to the taxpayer of roughly one million dollars and against their
stated wishes. We hope Common Council will not do so.
•.
5
RECOMMENDATION (Roadways)
We recommend that the present roadway system in Stewart Park
remain unchanged and that the Trowbridge proposals for changing this
roadway be deleted from his design plan.
RESTORATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS
Restoration Experts Needed
We appreciate Mr. Trowbridge's generosity in going beyond the
obligations of his contract by submitting redesign and restoration proposals
for existing building. But we think that restoration experts should be
developing these plans, particularly since the buildings in the park are
currently being considered for possible landmark designation by our local
Landmarks Preservation Commission.
Experts Should Not be Encumbered
The restoration experts should be called in at the beginning of the
restoration process to do the job and not, as Mr. Trowbridge proposes in the
case of the Boathouse, just to review plans already made by someone who is
not a preservationist. The professional conservators should not be
encumbered with plans devised by non-experts in the field. Particularly they
should not be encumbered with proposals to add architecturally inappropriate
new additions to an historic building such as the multi-level deck extending
over the duckpond which Mr. Trowbridge proposes adding to the Boathouse.
For further discussion of specific proposals see pages 18-19.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that restoration and preservation of existing buildings
in Stewart Park be referred to professionals of proven competence in this
specialized field. Because of the deterioration of the buildings we recommend
that this project be given high priority.
As necessary adjunct to this recommendation we must also
recommend that all Trowbridge proposals concerning new construction and
renovation of existing buildings be deleted from the design proposals.
6
DUCKPOND
Sounds Commendable
In the manual, Mr. Trowbridge says, "Restoration of the pond to create
a more ecologically suitable wildlife habitat is suggested for the deteriorated
duck pond." This sounds commendable but when one examines his
proposals one finds that they are more likely to destroy the pond as a suitable
wildlife habitat than enhance it as such.
Habitat Harmed
His proposals would not only considerably decrease the size of the
pond, but would also intrude upon the privacy of the bird life in the pond to
an extent that would most probably destroy it as a wildlife habitat.
To The North
At the northern end of the pond "the extensive recontouring"
proposed would add about 30 feet to the width of the earthern bulwark
around the pond and thus, of course, the same amount of space would be
subtracted from the pond itself -- which is almost as small now as a pond can
be and still accommodate swans which are a main attraction. The proposed
lake overlook pavilion at the northern section would attract more people
(possibly even our noisy stereo set because of tis seclusion) and this increase
in traffic of people would decrease the seclusion and quietness of the pond for
birds. For further comment on the Overlook Pavilion see page 15.
To the South
At the southern end of the pond the proposed addition to the
boathouse, a multi-level deck extending out over the pond and running
along the shoreline a good 100 feet "to create a zone for walking and
strolling," would intrude large numbers of people most destructively right
into this "ecological habitat" and would further decrease the space now
available to birds.
In the Middle
In the middle of the pond the proposed island, (larger than the "island"
there now) would be taken from bird use and given to human use by a
floating bridge thus decreasing even more land and water available to the
birds. Since the island and bridge would presumably need to be fenced, as is
the pond now, this proposal would also destroy the pond as a circular space
for the birds.
RECOMMENDATION
We think the duck pond should be thoroughly dredged and cleaned
and then left alone. We do not think any other of the Trowbridge duck pond
proposals should be implemented because they would be destructive to the
pond as a bird wildlife habitat.
LAGOON AND PAVILION,BOAT DOCK,FISHING PIERS
Too Busy
The observation which can be made about so much of the Trowbridge
Plan -- that it seems directed toward filling all available space with plantings,
structures or designated activities -- is appropriate here as well: one feels
there is no space left to breathe.
Needs Cleaning That's All
The Lagoon as it now exists is a serene, still,inland body of water with
grassy bank outlining the water's edge with the simplicity of Chinese
brushwork. It badly needs dredging and cleaning but we do not think it needs
to be filled up with fishing docks and boat piers and picnickers on a pavilion
which hangs over and intrudes upon the serenity of the water. We think
these plans are approaching an amusement park climate which we do not
think fitting for this park. The lagoon has an air of spaciousness because of tis
emptiness: it is not a large enough body of water to contain all the proposed
new activity without becoming unpleasantly crowded. These proposals seem
artificial and contrary to the way people presently enjoy the park.
Lagoon Pavilion Obstructive
We think introduction of such a high structure is obstructive rather
than pleasing to the eye. It will hide the lagoon from many spots. We don't
think the park needs another structure that is liable to deteriorate.
RECOMMENDATION
We think cramming the lagoon with pavilion, docks and piers will
spoil it. It's not large enough to comfortably contain all this busyness. We
recommend that these proposals be deleted from the plan.
We think more information as to purpose, expense and effects of the
impoundment structure need to be presented before it can reasonably be
voted upon. For further comments see page 16.
8
PLANTINGS AND ATTENDANT MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS
Space Filled
An overview of the Trowbridge Plan shows a fairly constant
characteristic of both filling space and confining space. We think the
extraordinary number of plants he recommends for the park exemplifies this
pattern. If all these plantings are approved and planted they will considerably
diminish the openness and freedom of the park.
Too Many Plants
His planting list includes 226 new trees (all but 12 of them costing
$300.00 a piece) 620 new shrubs, 3,5000 square feet of perennials and grasses
and 152,300 square feet of seeding. He also recommends for the park 183
additional tables, 75 additional benches and 42 additional barbecues. We find
these numbers unreasonable.
View Hidden
His proposal to plant a willow bush which grows 10-15 feet tall along
Fall Creek will create a vegetation barrier between the Creek and the park, and
it will hide the lovely vistas up Fall Creek and across to the golf course. As
one old timer at the park said when told about this: "Who wants to come to
the park and look at bushes?"
Maintenance Burden
And how are all these plants and grasses to be properly maintained?
Even now in all its elegant simplicity the park is inadequately maintained.
What will happen when so much space is filled with plantings?
RECOMMENDATION:
Stewart Park needs a planting schedule to insure replacement of
present trees as they age. We are disappointed that this was not prepared by
Mr. Trowbridge. We think this replacement schedule should be in hand
before other planting suggestions are approved. We do not think his planting
proposals, in any event, should be approved. The number of trees and plants
he proposes is so large it lacks reasonableness, and too many of his proposals
would be harmful to the beauty of the park.
9
FALL CREEK REGRADING AND GABIONS.
We were disappointed to learn on reading the manual that only a section of
the gabions will be removed. We were also disappointed to learn that the
regrading of the remaining shoreline will not make the water's edge
accessible to people as we had hoped. On the contrary, we learn that tall
growing shrubs will be planted along the shoreline which will constitute a
vegetation barrier between creek and park and which will also screen the
charming vistas up Fall Creek and across to the golf course. We do not think
the road should be changed and so much money spent for such poor return.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that proposals to regrade and replant Fall Creek not be
implemented.
FUERTES BIRD SANCTUARY GATES.
It is a truism among ornithologists that as casual visitors increase birds
tend to leave. The Trowbridge proposals concerning the Bird Sanctuary — the
elaborate attention-seeking gate, changing the entrance to a more prominent
spot, constructing paths leading to it —would all impinge on the viability of
the Sanctuary as a wildlife habitat by attracting more people to it. According
to the people we have spoken to at Sapsucker Woods Ornithology Laboratory,
many of the birds which children and adults take such delight in feeding
along the lake shore and Fall Creek are there because of the Sanctuary to
which they can safely return. If the Sanctuary becomes inhospitable to the
birds, due to a large influx of people, we will not only lose the birds there but
also many of the birds elsewhere in the park.
The architecture of the 16-17 foot high gate is not in keeping with other
park buildings. And it has a contrived quality with the dovecotes on top
which we find inappropriate to the dignity of this park.
We see as excessive the need for 9 trees at $300.00 each and 80 shrubs
near the Sanctuary.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the Trowbridge proposals concerning the Bird
Sanctuary not be implemented because it would damage the Sanctuary as a
wildlife habitat and would indirectly decrease bird life elsewhere in the park.
•
10
• PIER
Some of us had mixed feelings about the pier. It is a charming idea to
be able to walk out such a distance over the water. However, considerations
of safety reluctantly led us to vote against it. The water is not considered safe
for swimming and therefore it isn't safe to fall into. Barriers high enough
and sturdy enough to protect children from falling off the pier would defeat
its whole purpose. A safe and attractive pier in such a situation is a
contradiction in terms.
RECOMMENDATION:
We recommend that the proposal for a pier be deleted from the plan —
if the pier is attractive it won't be safe, and if it is safe it won't be attractive
and enjoyable. For further discussion see page 19.
WATERFRONT BULGE
The Bulge seems inappropriate to the lake shore -- an alien intrusion
upon a beautiful spot. One can now damber on rocks and feel dose to the
water with a sense of the full sweep of the shoreline. The Bulge would
become a visual obstruction those to the east could not look westerly past it
and those to the west could not look easterly past it. It would cut up the sense
of space at the shoreline.
RECOMMENDATION:
We think the Bulge would be an unpleasant visual blockade and
intrusion upon the shoreline and recommend that it not be implemented.
PLAYGROUND
See discussion page 17.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the playground not be reorganized, rezoned and
compartmentalized. The children obviously like it as it is.
We recommend that the proposals for fanciful new equipment with "moving
parts animated by wind and creating sound" not be approved. While we are
sure this suggestion was made in good faith it shows an unawareness of how
briskly and continuously the wind can blow at times in the park. Such
equipment in such an environment could be dangerous and would be
disturbing to the peace and quiet of the park.
We recommend that the proposed new cement wall and fence around the
merry-go-round not be approved. Among other disadvantages it would
screen the children riding their beautifully repainted horses.
11
REMOVAL OF BARBECUE PITS FROM PARK AND CHANGE OF WEST
FIELD TO A BARBECUE FIELD
We had thought the omission in the manual of mention of the permanent
barbeque pits at East Field was an oversight but we have learned that Mr.
Trowbridge recommends that they be permanently removed from the park
and that temporary pits be set up as needed. Mr. Trowbridge conducted a
survey, at city expense, which showed that the only change a majority of the
people wanted in the park was better restrooms, yet he ignores his own
survey and plans major changes about the way people use the park. We do
not think Mr. Trowbridge should be given the right to disrupt pleasantly
established customs such as the large annual barbecues the Kiwanis and other
groups hold at the corner of the picnic pavilion on East Field. For such
groups West Field is too from the lake (the main attraction), too far from
restrooms and too far from adequate shelter in case of rain. For further
comments see pages 17-18.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend non approval of the Trowbridge proposal to change West
Field into a barbeque area. People should decide where they want to picnic
and besides this proposal would displace all the young people who now
energetically use it for baseball, lacrosse, frisbee, football, soccer, kite flying, etc.
We think West Field should be left as it is and the permanent barbeque pits
not only left but left where they are.
LIGHTING
The idea of placing 37 bollard lights (which are at eye level or lower) at
the pier or tennis courts (or anywhere for that matter) seems most
unfortunate. They will serve the purpose for the onlooker of screening his
surround from him not of increasing his area of vision. People come to the
park to see its beauty not to be blinded by lights. For further discussion of
bollards and street lamps see pages 19 and 23.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the bollards and street lamps not be approved.
12
PARK ENTRANCE SIGNS
We think these two signs, both of billboard proportions (11 feet high by
21 feet wide), one on each side of the road, are totally out of keeping with the
character and dignity of the park. These enormous signs, filling space and
hiding vistas, typify much of what we see as destructive to the beauty of the
Park in the Trowbridge Plan. For further comment see page 20.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that these signs not be approved.
•
• 13
LOST PLEASURES AND UPHEAVAL OF PARK USAGE
Over the years certain groups and ages have claimed special places for
themselves at Stewart Park. Some have held their territories for a long time,
others have just settled in.
These established areas of usage in many cases work not only for the
good of the users but for the safety and pleasure of all. We think the
Trowbridge Plan disrupts or shifts about too many of these accepted areas of
usage -- by either delegating a different usage to an area or by introducing
additional and incompatible usages to a groups' territory.
The following groups will either be displaced or if they remain their
areas will be changed in some fashion by the Trowbridge Plan.
Baseball, lacrosse and frisbee players
Kiwanis and other large annual barbeque groups
Cyclists
Beep baseball players
People who enjoy sitting in their cars to watch the lake
Roadside stereo set
Fall Creek bird feeders
Ducks and swans and their watchers at the Duck Pond
Birds in the Fuertes Bird Sanctuary
Baseball,Lacrosse and Frisbee Players
Their territory, West Field, where an uncaught hard ball is
comparatively safe to bystanders, will be turned over to barbecues and
picnickers if the Trowbridge Plan is implemented. The players will be
assigned to East Field which is only about half as large as West Field so there
won't be room for as many players as before.
The Kiwanis and other and Other Large Annual Barbeque Groups
The permanent barbeque pits will be removed from the park and
temporary ones set up as needed. The Kiwanis and others will either (not
discussed in manual) be displaced to West Field or they will share their East
Field spot with all the energetic young players from West Field.
Cyclists
The newly narrowed roads — only 16 feet for one way and 22 feet for
two way traffic-- can scarcely be considered comfortably safe for cyclists.
Where will they go?
14
Beep Baseball Players
These blind athletes have found a quiet spot for themselves where they
can hear the beeps on specially designed softballs. But their spot
unfortunately will be turned over to the extravagant (39 trees at $300.00 each
and 150 shrubs among other items) Mayor Stewart Garden. Where will the
beep players go? All available space in the park is being filled with
Trowbridge proposals. We suspect that Mr. Stewart who gave such a lovely
gift to the community would prefer that the beep baseballers keep their field.
People Who Enjoy Sitting in Their Cars to Watch the Lake
If these people can still find a parking spot they can stay where they are
now, but it will be invaded. Because parking will no longer be dispersed
throughout the park and because more then half of all parking will now be
concentrated at both sides of the narrowed lakefront road, this area will
become congested and noisy -- more like a typical parking lot — and will no
longer be as pleasant a place to sit in a car and watch the lake.
Roadside Stereo Kids
Their territory, along the edge of the most southwesterly of park roads,
and therefore comparatively isolated, will be obliterated. The spacious road
will be narrowed to a mere 16 feet and parallel parking eliminated. They will
probably need to move to the lakefront, since more than half of all parking is
allocated there, taking their music with them.
Fall Creek Duck Feeders
The gabions, most of which will remain, already repel ducks form that
section of Fall Creek shoreline. The remaining section will be regraded and
planted with a shrub that grows 10 feet tall and which will thus hide the
waterline and the ducks, and form a vegetation barrier. It doesn't seem likely
Fall Creek will remain a spot from which to feed the birds.
Ducks and Swans and Their Watchers at the Duck Pond
There are such severe encroachments planned upon the size and
privacy of the pond that it is doubtful it will survive as a wildlife habitat.
Among other proposals, the island in the middle will be enlarged and taken
from the birds and given to people.
Birds in the Fuertes Bird Sanctuary
As ornithologists will tell you, in general the more people in a bird
sanctuary the less birds. The birds in this sanctuary will be effectively
dispossessed if the Trowbridge proposals to attract people to the sanctuary are
implemented. Fewer birds in this Sanctuary means fewer birds elsewhere in
the park (see Fuertes Gate section).
15
CRITICAL COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC PROPOSALS AS THEY APPEAR IN THE
"STEWART PARK DESIGN PLAN MANUAL" DRAFT COPY.
[The comments herein presented should not be
misconstrued as comprehensive nor should any
subject omitted from this critique be regarded
as automatically acceptable as presented.]
CONCEPT PLANS
2. Architectural Facilities
The assertion that "the addition of a new park structure to the south glade, called
the Lagoon Pavilion is the only new structure proposed in the park" is false. The
extensive decking around the existing boathouse, the pavilion along the path around
the duck pond, the proposed steel pergola and lattice pavilion between the existing
dance and picnic pavilions, the lake pier, the gate to the bird sanctuary and the
gate to the park are all major new structures being proposed for Stewart Park.
DETAIL A-2
Boathouse Deck Overlooking Wildlife Pond
Programatic motives for this decking are at best unclear. As proposed, it diminishes
the architectural integrity of the boathouse, threatens the viability of the duck
pond as a wildlife habitat, and duplicates the existing more appropriately scaled
function of the existing duck pond overlook. This deck would be a significant addition
to the general maintenance requirements of the park.
DETAIL B-1
Wildlife Pond, Island and Floating Bridge
The proposal for a floating bridge connecting a central island to the circumference
path about the duckpond may subvert the stated intention for the duck pond to attract
and harbour wildlife.
DETAIL B-2
Overlook Pavilion
This proposed pavilion would create a focus and an obstruction in an otherwise serene
context. Its remote location might encourage mischievous or vandalous behavior
and it would constitute yet another maintenance obligation.
16
DETAIL C-2
Regraded Shoreline of Fall Creek
Details A and B of regraded Fall Creek shore suggest a proposed shoreline
circumstance which would be inaccessible as a result of regrading and planting.
DETAIL D-1
Lagoon Pavilion
This proposed structure is architecturally incompatible with other existing
architecture in the park. It constitutes yet one more new maintenance concern
and may serve in conjunction with other alterations to the lagoon to diminish the
unique and serene character of the lagoon.
DETAIL G-1
Fishing Docks
These docks are unnecessary intrusions into the lagoon. They too represent additional
maintenance obligations and they would serve as needless subversions of the integrity
of the lagoon.
DETAIL H-1
Beach Shore
This regrading of a portion of the lagoon in conjunction with lagoon pavilion, boat
dock, paddle boat rentals and fishing platforms would in essence destroy the lagoon
as a unified entity restricting its potential for multiple use and interpretation,
prescribing or preordaining use according to a new less commodious conception.
SECTION 5
Playground and Tea Pavilion
The path of asphalt proposed to surround the tea pavilion is unnecessary and subverts
this pavilion's existing adrift quality within the park's expansive lawn. The proposed
additional benches and barbeques in this part of the park are far too numerous.
•
. 17
DETAIL K-1
Overlook Wall
This battered concrete "seawall" is an alien intrusion in the Stewart Park lake shore
continuum. The proposed bollards are likewise aliens resembling a regiment of
androids along the water's edge.
AREA M
Playground Concept Diagram
This proposal for the reorganization of the existing playground would involve
considerable disruption and expense. The resultant reorganization would achieve
the sort of zoning and comparmentalization which tends to trouble this entire park
redesign. The existing play equipment and the existing layout with proper maintenance
are perfectly suitable.
AREA M
Typology of Play Equipment
Play equipment should indeed remain tubular and transparent. The so-called
"imaginative" play equipment option is extravagant, calling attention to itself to
the detriment of its surrounding context.
DETAIL M-2
Maintenance and Fencing
The proposed fence around the carousel probably should not, as is suggested, mimic
the existing or the proposed playground equipment. The carousel is, in the context
of Stewart Park, essentially an animated pavilion, - that is it is a simple roof canopy
with events beneath. Like the tea pavilion for example, it exists as an isolated event
which seemingly floats upon and in counterpoint to the great green lawn of Stewart
Park. Fencing surrounding the carousel should certainly not be mounted on a heavy
concrete base thereby interrupting the ground plane. Proposed fencing should in
no way interrupt the ground plane. Proposed fencing should in no way interrupt
vision nor should it call attention to itself. A combination of a metal mesh with
widely spaced primarily horizontal structural supports might be examined as an
appropriate approach in this case.
SECTION 4
West Field
The substantial increase in permanent barbeque structures proposed in this area
18
. •
is excessive. According to this conception the west field is to be fundamentally
transformed from its present multiplicity of uses to a realm which is almost
exclusively the domain of the backyard barbeque relocated. This scheme fails to
recognize that it is illogical to assume that barbequers come to Stewart Park only
to rub elbows with other barbequers. At the present time picnicking is not bound
into a set of delineating precincts at Stewart Park, it is rather interspersed throughout
the park offering a great variety of orientation, degree of isolation or community,
and adjacent activity. It is difficult to imagine which would be more disconcerting,
the sight of 40-50 empty picnic tables and 40-50 unused barbeque structures encircling
the perimeter of the west field or that rare occasion when all these facilities might
simultaneously be in use with the odor of charcoal lighter fluid and scorched
hamburger dominating the park experience. Fixed picnic facilities need not and
certainly should not be installed in order to accommodate the worst case scenarios
(Memorial Day, Labor Day, or July 4).
SECTION 6
Park Pavilion Complex & Pier
DETAILS N-1, N-2
Pavilions, Pergola, Stepped Courtyard
While the proposal to restore and rehabilitate the dance and picnic pavilions is laudible
and most necessary, the proposed so-called pergola can in no way be regarded as
either restoration or rehabilitation. This proposed pergola is new construction in
what is architecturally the most sensitive part of the park. This new construction
is quite simply not in sympathy or in character with the Vivian and Gibb pavilions
which it is proposed to adjoin.
In addition, this proposal recommends a third pavilion as part of the new pergola
structure occupying the central axis established by the original pair, thereby further
diminishing the character, quality, and integrity of the Vivian and Gibb architectural
conception.
This proposed "steel" pergola and lattice pavilion would constitute yet another major
maintenance addition to the park to no discernible positive end. While the instinct
to appropriately use the space between the two original pavilions is a good one,
the proposed pergola and lattice pavilion would needlessly constrict and hamper
varied use. In summary, the proposal for a new pergola and lattice pavilion would
operate in conflict with the original Vivian and Gibb architectural conception
embodied in the picnic and dance pavilions and would in addition operate against
the best interests for the flexible and productive use of the space established by
these pavilions.
r.
19
•
DETAIL N-2
Pergola and Stepped Courtyard Space
Rather than a simple platform for activity deferring to the grace of the adjacent
Vivian and Gibb pavilions and the timeless beauty of the lake basin, this proposal
for a courtyard space includes a new "steel" pergola, an additional pavilion grabbing
the center established by the original pair, a stepped section further impairing certain
uses, an array of patterns for paving, a serpentine stone sitting wall, miniature
lighthouse light fixtures, android-like bollard light fixtures, and so on. Through
this sort of excess this proposal loses sight of and trivializes the most essential aspects
of this park and landscape.
DETAIL 0-1
Waterfront Sea Wall
Lights alluding to lighthouses placed between the dance and picnic pavilions and
the lake shore while characteristic of a lite-hearted comic sense would unfortunately
trivialize this critical point in the park. In addition, these fixtures would be most
annoying as their light would emanate at approximately eye level. These miniature
lighthouses and the android-like bollard lights proposed along the shoreline represent
a kind of one-line joke sensibility which ought not be inflicted on this park in
perpetuity.
DETAIL P-i
Waterfront Pier
While the proposed pier may in some sense recall piers which have existed in this
location in the past, it is difficult to support it under present circumstances. A
pier once existed in conjunction with swimming at Stewart Park. However, swimming
is not now under consideration. Such a pier would not be usable for fishing. It would
require railings for safety mitigating many of the most desirable effects of being
out over the water. Such a pier would inevitably suffer regular damage from expansion
and other movement of large masses of ice. It must be said that this pier would
become yet one more significant maintenance chore were it to be constructed.
DETAIL R-1
Fuertes Bird Sanctuary Gate
Yet another maintenance addition, this proposed gate is ostentatious, overly busy,
and again founded on a comic sensibility. As such it is out of context with both
park proper and sanctuary.
•
20
DETAIL U-1
Stewart Park Entrance Gateway
This gate appears to have been in some measure inspired by the commercial strip.
It functions as a form of billboard advertising the park's existence but not its
character. Such effort is unnecessary and misrepresents the existing beauty and
serenity of this landscape. It is excessive, ostentatious and imposes again needless
addition of park maintenance.
MAP 1
Road and Paths
In general all roadways within the park have been proposed to be constricted to
a point which is at best insufficient and at work dangerous. Vehicular turning radii
are extremely tight. What has for some time existed as an easy graceful vehicular
passage with a spotless record for safety is now recommended for a transformation
into a constricted, halting alley threading through a series of single and double loaded
parking lots. So much for pleasure cycling or for strolling along the road's edge.
MAP 4
Planting
Planting is grossly excessive.
MAP 5
Park Furnishings
Numbers of proposed new permanent barbeques, benches and tables are excessive.
Proposed groupings tend to compartmentalize picnickers into charcoal broiled tracts
within the park.
• • 21
BASIC RECOMMENDATION OF CITIZENS TO SAVE STEWART PARK
No Blanket Approval
We urge that the Trowbridge Design Plan for Stewart Park not be given
blanket approval. (And make no mistake -- "approval in concept" does mean
approval. It means "this is the concept which we will implement.")
Items Should Be Individually Voted Upon
Because there are items in the Plan which would be destructive to the
beauty and functioning of the park we recommend that each of the proposals
and items in the Plan be carefully scrutinized, prioritized and then each
separately voted on; but all voted on in the same session and always within
the context of the overall design and character of the park. We do not see this
recommendation as in anyway implying that there are items we approve of
in the plan.
Ideally, we would like SPAG and Common Council to acknowledge
Mr. Trowbridge's contribution and thank him for it and let that be an end to
the matter. We do not think this community should feel under obligation to
spend money redesigning a park we do not want redesigned.
Items Should Be Voted Upon Now
Our recommendation concerning itemization and separate
consideration of proposals should not be interpreted as meaning the items
should be voted on separately through the years. The items in the plan
should be voted upon now. A situation should not be set up for items to be
voted upon or implemented without knowledge of the community.
22
MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION
Blending of Old and New is Complex
The Trowbridge master plan throughout attempts to blend the old
historic fabric with new materials. This is done by means of "mimicking",
that is to borrow or echo some details, in a simplified manner. This is a very
complex and difficult process and seems to strain the perimeters of Mr.
Trowbridge's assignment. Unless such encroachments of new upon old are
very carefully detailed, scaled and rationally though out, we could end up
with an unsavory hodge-podge of pavilions with severed hindquarters, cash
n' carry pressure treated trellis work, and catalog bollards sprouting like fungi
under replica Empire light standards.
Should Call in Restoration Expert
The problem of mixing historic periods with contemporary ones can be
surmounted and even result in visually pleasing solutions, but restoration
guidelines should have been established right at the beginning, and not
referred to this late in a process well advanced in the wrong direction.
MAINTENANCE AND MATERIALS
Inadequate Maintenance Now
The most common complaint about Stewart Park has been the lack of
adequate maintenance. In the past, trees have been pruned improperly or not
at all, the pavilions have suffered from leaking roofs and the furniture has
become shabby.
New Plans Increases Problems
The new Trowbridge master plan incorporates a myriad of additional
barbecues, light standards, bollards, tables, docks,benches and other park
paraphernalia. Along with the new items there is an embellishing of almost
all existing equipment, i.e. the refencing of the carousel, the sprouting of
whirligigs on the playground, the decorative paving of courtyards.
Some Specifications not Given
To be able to evaluate either the type or amount of maintenance
required for these additions, there have to be specifications for materials;
these have not been provided. One can only speculate that all the new
verandas, docks, floating bridges, entrance gateway, bird sanctuary toll-bridge,
piers, etc. are to be constructed in pressure treated lumber (in which case the
grounds and water would be polluted for a long time) or, are these elements
built in cedar, redwood or no. #1 pine? The better grade lumber would have
to be painted or stained on an ongoing basis. It is impossible to obtain realistic
figures or estimate maintenance time on such sketchy outlines.
, .
23
Some Specifications Inadequate
Where there are details given, such as the street lanterns, the choices
are inappropriate: grandiose luminating devices belonging in front of the
Paris Opera. Along with the 19th century streetlights dispersed profusely are
late 20th century large and small lit bollards. If bollards are to evoke the
feelings of buoys, what are they doing planted in land?
Consistency Important
It is critical that visual details such as colors, calligraphy and scale of
signage are carefully worked out and applied in a uniform fashion. The by no
means modest entrance gateway, 11' x 42', shows a rather indecisive alphabet
"built up arts & crafts", poorly spaced. The type used on the bird sanctuary
towers is a "free-hand contemporary" menu style. Neither is desirable. And
again what materials are the letters, background, methods of affixing, etc.,
etc.?
The base for the roads and paths is given. What is the base for
decorative pavers? The heaving of paving work in Ithaca has been a constant
struggle, as seen in DeWitt Park and the Common.
No Maintenance Schedules
Basic, practical, usable guidelines for the Department of Public Works
such as tree pruning and feeding, stock replacement schedules, new planting
procedures, have not been provided.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Re establish priorities for what the park really needs. Temporary
stabilization of structures is not even addressed.
Cost estimates should not be provided on such vague concepts. The
pier and footbridge would both require railings to comply with New York
State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Codes.
Park pavilion restoration should be included in stage one, rather than
being relegated to a secondary position dependent upon fundraising.
Instead of expensive and prevalent catalog items, i.e. tables, benches,
barbecues, signs, this furniture could be custom built locally and offer
community participation.
'1 •
7114()_" `‘
1ric_zrc.41r
1 ;All
oajr. 4b/
CITY OF ITHACA
108 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:272-1713
PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT CODE 607
H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
To: Trowbridge . Trowbridge
Members of SPAG
•
Members of Citizens to Save Stewart Park
From: Leslie Chatterton, Preservation/Neighborhood Planner and SPAG Member
Re: Stewart Park Design Plan Manual
Date: June 30, 1987
This memo is written in response to the consultant's request for
comments concerning the Stewart Park Design Plan Manual. These comments include
opinions expressed by the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) at the
regular monthly meeting held on June 17, 1987.
The manual presents a relatively clear, readable picture of present
conditions and projected plans. It addresses many timely issues which if ignored
or postponed would eventually have negative impacts on the park. This is par-
ticularly evident in view of maintenance concerns which are becoming increasingly
critical over time. The consultant's acknowledgment of preservation, restoration,
and maintenance as fundamental principles guiding the design plan reflect general
public interest as expressed in the initial survey and at public meetings.
Within the text of the design plan, however, preservation terminology
pertaining to proposals for buildings, structures, objects and sites is sometimes
confusing. Conservation, stabilization, restoration, and rehabilitation are
definitive terms, descriptive of various preservation approaches. The approach
or combination of approaches selected for any specific structure should be
accurately identified in the "objectives" and "actions" proposed in' the plan.
Aside from the three fundamental principals noted, many of the proposals in the
design plan do call for either new construction, substantial alteration of exist-
ing buildings and the introduction of new elements, such as the bollards, lights
standards, signage, and play equipment. In such cases compatibility may include,
but should not be limited to borrowing specific design motifs from existing
structures as noted in the plan such as the diamond detail at the base of the
pavilion columns. Particular concerns prompted by the new proposals include:
An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
3
•
-2-
. The size and scale of decking proposed for the north facade of
the boathouse.
. The functional and visual compatibility of the overlook structure
and the lagoon pavilion.
. The size, scale and materials of the paved stepped courtyard
between the dance pavilion and the picnic pavilion.
. The design considerations for the construction of the pergola,
(recognizing this as an adaptation of the original colonnade
proposed in the Vivian and Gibb design).
. The width of the municipal pier.
•
. The introduction of the seawalls.
. The type and style of park furniture, light standards, fencing
and signage.
. The size, scale and form of the gates at the park entry and the
bird sanctuary.
. The style of new play equipment.
The ILPC is the body appointed by the Mayor to preserve and protect the
City's historic, architectural and cultural resources. Among the resources identi-
fied in the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance is " . . . any structure, memorial or
site which has special character, special historical and aesthetic interest and
value as part of the development, heritage and cultural characteristics of the City
of Ithaca, including site of natural or ecological interest." (§32.2) The ILPC
is practised in the review of design proposals within the context of accepted
criteria and has consistently found that preservation standards are flexible
enough to sanction compatible changes that occur over time as well as incorporate
the requisites of contemporary use. ILPC review of design proposals for the park
concerning buildings, structures, and other elements of the built environment
would support the stated principles of the plan and ensure that alterations and
new construction proceed in a manner harmonious with the building, structure or
object as well as the overall surroundings.
Finally, in reference to the upcoming meeting of July 9, 'it may be
useful to follow the organizational system used in the manual. Using this format
SPAG members could discuss the design plan in terms of the "objectives" and the
"actions" proposed for each of the nine park "areas", as they are delineated in
the plan. Ideally, this would help to ensure the SPAG discussion is neither
overly detailed or uselessly general.
LC/mc
cc: Mayor John C. Gutenberger
•
Comments on the Stewart`Park Draft Design Plan
June, 1987
At the June 11/87 meeting of SPAG, we were assured by Mayor Gutenberger
and John Dougherty that a "yes" vote on the "overall concept" of the
the draft plan would still mean that each separate part of the plan
would have to be decided on by Common Council and SPAG, after receiving
comments from the public. Even after a "no" vote, there is nothing to
stop the city from considering specific recommendations of the plan.
Therefore, the difference between a yes and a no vote is more psychological
than real.
The people of this city have made it abundantly clear that they like
the park just as it is, except for the bathrooms, and perhaps some sprucing
up of deteriorating buildings. This is a real credit to the job the
DPW has been doing over the years. A "yes" vote, though it really would
mean about the same thing as a "no" vote, would be perceived by the
public as ignoring the overwhelming sentiment that the park should not
be changed.
Because at some point (regardless of the vote) specific recommendations
are likely to be considered by Common Council, I am addressing my.comments
to some of these specifics. .
1. Raking out the algae and litter from the wildlife pond should have
a high priority, as should the removal of some gabions along Fall Creek
and covering of others. Litter (bottles and plastic cups, especially)
from the water's edge all over the park, and the sprucing up of current
historic buildings - and their bathrooms - also should have high priority.
2. Could all the gabions be removed and replaced with plants and/or
large stones (rip-rap)? (Not only are they avoided by wildlife, they
have a sterile, industrial appearance not in keeping with the park.)
Would covering the gabions with soil and plants really work? That is,
would there be sufficient covering to protect the feet of wildlife and
waterfowl?
3. It is important that, in a given area, one objective be compatible
with another. For example, plans to improve the wetland habitats of
the wildlife pond and lagoon areas are incompatible with some of the
construction proposals in those areas. In the lagoon, construction of
a pavilion with concession stand and boat rentals, and the encourage- •
ment of fishing, would draw large numbers of people and their trash,
fishing hooks, monofilament line, etc. If we want the lagoon to be an
unspoiled edge to the bird sanctuary, we should not be attempting to
increase use of the area.
I am opposed to encouraging more fishing in the lagoon. (There already
is a lot - I counted 19 fishermen on June 14th.) Ithaca abounds in good
fishing spots. Why make this an even greater attraction of the park? Fish
hooks and fishing line are a real danger to waterfowl, and tangled lines
hang from a couple of trees and the overhead electric wires. Hooks aren't
• r
2
great in bare feet either, yet wading is one use suggested for the lagoon.
The benches already there should be plenty. A pavilion and little
fishing docks aren't needed. Nor are bathrooms, if they'd be in both
the boathouse and main pavilion.
As for the wildlife pond, the same comments apply. A restaurant, complete
with extensive decks over the pond for people to drop their trash from,
and of course large numbers of people with their noise, would be inconsistent
with the aim of making the pond a small wetland wildlife preserve.
The boat rentals proposed for the lagoon would more logically go in
the south or west side of the boathouse. This would provide more central
access to the lake, creek, and lagoon. It is, afterall, a boathouse!
Making the current boathouse attractive and useable, with bathrooms
and perhaps a community room, makes some sense. But I am resistant to
restoring it to its former bulky and imposing state.
4. There should not be a bridge to the small island in the pond. The
island would become completely trampled and litters; and made unsuitable
for the wildlife it's intended for. Far better that we be able to look
• across the water to an unspoiled spot!
5. I would also urge caution in 'removal of any plants around the pond.
Removal or replacement of plants should only proceed under the advice
of competent naturalists. The area has had a long time for plants suited
to that location to establish themselves, and the variety is quite im-
pressive, including plants which provide good food for wildlife as well
as nesting sites. The massive willows along the shore are beautiful,
and needed. Here's a partial list of plants that I noted on a recent
walk around the pond: red osier dogwood, shadbush, wild grape, Virginia
creeper, several viburnum species, staghorn sumac, slippery elm, mulberry,
ash, honeysuckle, willow, box elder, walnut, wild cherry, basswood,
cottonwood, black locust, alder, Russian (?) olive, privet, multiflora
rose, poison ivy. The variety as well as density and tangle is ideal
for small birds.
The DPW has shown good sense in letting nature take its course here. As
a result, the narrow path gives one a delightful sense of walking through
a jungle.
6. An overlook shelter NW of the pond could become an attraction to
groups of drinkers, etc., being out of sight from the rest of the park. This
could make walks around the pond unpleasant, and also make the pond
itself less attractive to wildlife. In other words, I think such a shelter
would be incompatible with the goals for the pond area. Views from that
spot can be enjoyed just as well without a shelter.
7. Yes to proposals for the Fall Creek bank: regrading so a gentle
grass slope going down to the water; shrub willows or rip-rap instead
of gabions where bank stabilization is really needed; covering the current
gabions if they can't be entirely removed (and if covering them would
work).
S. Yes to tennis court relocation.
9. Yes to new plantings along rt. 13 and the eastern edge of the park
generally. And I hope around the new Youth Bureau.
•
• 3
3
10. Concerning the central pavilions:
a. Courtyard between the buildings should be flat, not stepped.
Otherwise dancing and various other suggested uses for the
space would be impossible. Small kids would require constant
supervision in the area, and access for the handicapped would
be a problem.
b. Eliminate the pergola idea. It would be a real temptation
to use it as a jungle gym, and its flimsy construction
would never hold up. Also, it's too grandiose for the relaxed
atmosphere of the park.
Attractive paving in the courtyard would be plenty, in terms
of tying the two buildings together architecturally.
c. The pier is just the sort of substantive change that the public
is so adamantly opposed. to. In any case, we do not need a
pier and a little "battered concrete" bulge along the lake
shore and a jetty at the east end. (In fact, I imagine the
.bulge Ts more appropriately named than was intended. How would
it hold up in heavy weather? Same question applies to the
pier and jetty.) The views from the naturally curving shore
are just fine as they are, and the large stones get people
down next to the water (and seem popular with all ages).
d. Could the Stake St. bricks be used around the buildings?
e. Rather than replacing the old north-south road to the main
pavilion with plants, how about simply eliminating the connection
to the main park road? Then kids could use the old road for
skate-boarding, bicycling, and roller skating.
IL The many public comments that the road through the park should be
wider than proposed make sense to me, in terms of safety, both for drivers
and for pedestrians, joggers, bicyclers.
12.. I disagree with the report's claim that east-west circulation through
the park is hampered by the present playground arrangement. But other
reasons for changing the set-up, as discussed in the draft, may be valid. I
would like to hear more comments from parents on this before anything
was implemented. (The current set-up was not a problem when my kids
were little.)
13. A conspicuous gateway leading to the bird sanctuary could attract
too many people to the area. A small sign, and perhaps a barrier to
prevent nonpedestrians from entering, should be the most attention we
want to draw to the area. (I would prefer no sign.) Could similar obstruc-
tions to dirt bikes be placed at the other ends of the trails, to the .
west? An effective barrier - that can't be propped open or broken off
- that I have seen in other states, looks (from above) something like
this:
I see no reason to move the current sanctuary entrance to the west. Its
fine where it is.
•
4
If a fancy entranceway should end up being approved, it should not
include dovecotes, as in the draft proposal! Starlings and house sparrows
would quickly move in.
14. I question the wisdom of having a water impoundment structure at
the west end of the lagoon. Wouldn't this be a barrier to fish and other
water creatures? I do not have a clear picture of what such a structure
would be like. Could you spell this out in the final draft?
15. I would prefer keeping the DPW's current, and very attractive, signs Cone
at the entrance to the park. The proposed entranceway seems too grand, Si°"` �""`�"""�
and not consistent with the style of the park. Also a waste of money
that could be used on more substantive park improvements. I also see
no need for an elaborate pickup-dropoff structure at the entrance. A
park bench at that location should be plenty.
16. Any sculptures that are placed in the park should be sturdy and
suitable for climbing on, as well as attractive.
17. If any changes are made around the flagpole, I hope the current
stone steps will be left as they are. They have a lovely archeological-ruin
sort of look to them.
Considering the public's strongly expressed approval for the park as
it is and their distress at the thought of substantive changes to it,
any such changes should be approached cautiously, and with ample opportunity
for public comment. As one person put it, the park currently has a certain
rough-hewn quality that is very appealing and distinctly "Ithacan,"
a quality that would be lost by fancifying or suburbanizing it.
Betsy Darlington, SPAG rep. from C.A.C.
273-0707
204 Fairmount Ave.
• f
1 qe"1 N '
�Cr (pro
a
'g m
LL New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
O NEW YORK STATE Finger Lakes Region—Taughannock Park Road,Trumansburg, New York 14886-0721 607-387-7041
Commission Chairman: Orin Lehman, Commissioner
John R. Battersby Andrew R. Mazzella, Regional Director
Commission Members:
Mrs.Catherine ynes 0 1
Mrs.John C.Reynolds D I
Robert R.Reynolds July 3, 1987
Mrs.Louise V.Stillman
i ; -- 81987
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jack Dougherty
FROM: Chuck Dunlap
RE: Stewart Park Design Plan Manual (1987)
Comments:
Trowbridge and Trowbridge have done an outstanding job of preparing a
new master plan for Stewart Park while at the same time retaining most or
all of the original lines and features. They have not redesigned the park,
but merely restored some of the main structures and enhanced others. Some
are overenhanced. Some should be scaled down or eliminated.
I view this plan as a guide to future improvements, suggested
development, and general maintenance. Trowbridge and Trowbridge were not
obligated to provide detailed construction drawings and maintenance
schedules. Following are some of my own thoughts.
Area A. Boathouse is overdecked. If verandas and porches are
restored, that may be enough viewing and sitting area.
Area B. Pond needs dredging and cleaning up. Aquatic vegetation will
come back quickly. Too much reshaping of shoreline will do away with
wildlife habitat rather than create it. This should be done selectively and
carefully. Path needs improvement but overlook deck not necessary.
Eliminate bridge to island.
Area C. Planting pockets should have been left beween gabions to
establish vegetation. Perhaps every other one could be removed and a
smaller one inserted to create planting pockets.
Area D. Pavilion low priority. Probably not needed. Is there a
demand for boat rental in this area?
Area E. Soft paths not good for biking. Too much parking capacity for
this small space.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
r
Jack Dougherty -2- July 3, 1987
Area H. Fishing decks are not needed, but pier or deck with
handicapped access should be provided.
Area K. Eliminate battered wall . It doesn't serve any purpose.
Area P. The pier is a very expensive item without much function. It
would require a bubbler system to keep it from heaving in the winter. It is
too massive and should be eliminated or scaled down.
Area R. Bird Sanctuary gate should be much less formalized. This
would even scare the birds.
Area V. Jetty not needed. It will be a catch-all for floating debris.
Area W. Tennis courts should be moved but out of the park. Is there
roam on the youth bureau side of the tracks?
Roads and Parking. Width is ample for park roads - speed limit 25 MPH
or less.
Parking perpendicular to the road is quite standard for park roads.
The long linear parking strips along the west field should be broken up with
a couple of planted spaces.
Plantings. The amount of additional trees and shrubs is not excessive
for a park of this size. They should be introduced over a period of years
as older trees decline and to maintain an uneven age stand.
Trowbridge says the objective is to encourage the use of native trees
and shrubs yet suggests many exotic species.
Lighting. Should be kept at a minimum.
Bollards - enough already said.
Benches and Tables. Far too expensive.
/11.4
Charles H. Dunl - FLSP, SPAG
CHD:jp
Irt 1�l F. 'D.,;�A ..,,., -., _. �'„Y• ' 8o” �i�L r".�..,,. d-Y�=- _ 'rte.•.. '-�
_ X133
r� vs J r , i e�®, 'i'di�a �8 ,� y e fit- +. "1 ...11t,; °; ?� � i'
> - . • iQ;. (~��, ; c Tr a�� � , '� 1 HIIHH -�, �li �.. rA-»% ® �l�P�fa�. 1�
4k��m 'ti-Ner ,� mT '.,"'d'±
A
I
l
Comments on the Stewart Park Design Plan Manual
Page 2
While preservation and restoration--although undefined--are clearly in
the Design Plan vocabulary, the concept of STABILIZATION has been
curiously omitted. First, and foremost, the Boathouse needs immediate
stabilization, whether or not this is a specified Stage One activity.
As with all rehabilitation/preservation efforts, this stabilization
should be directed by a qualified preservation consultant with the
assistance of a structural engineer. If the fate of the existing
buildings must be dependent upon the fundraising done during Stage
One, then stabilization of the Boathouse is all the more imperative.
Mr. Trowbridge has publicly stated that work on the Boathouse is a
high priority; does it not follow that stabilization should occur
sooner rather than later, and most specifically within the first two
years?
In light of the discussions on building issues held during the public
comment sessions and the evidence that the existing buildings required
serious and immediate attention, Historic Ithaca is deeply
dissatisfied with ABSENCE OF APPROPRIATE SPECIFICATIONS AND COST
ACCOUNTING FOR THE REHABILITATION/PRESERVATION PROJECTS. If the
Trowbridge firm was unwilling or unable to address these concerns,
then it was its responsibility to make this known in a timely fashion
so that a qualified consultant could be retained. As is, the Design
Plan Manual is inadequate in at least two areas of immediate concern--
STABILIZATION and MAINTENANCE.
A final comment on the Stewart Park Design Plan Manual: Perhaps the
most significant flaw in this proposal is its failure to provide for
LONG RANGE PLANNING. If one fact became apparent during this study
process, it must be that our current system for park planning is
chaos. Historic Ithaca would like to recommend--as we had hoped that
the Trowbridge Plan would--that the City of Ithaca constitute a PARK
COMMISSION, much like the other citizen advisory boards now in place,
to act as overseer on planning and maintenance issues for all city
parks. It is further recommended that this commission consist of not
less than eight members, chosen because of their specific expertise;
included should be an ecologist/conservationist, a naturalist, a
botanist or horticulturist, a landscape planner, a preservationist, an
ornithologist or similarly qualified person, a marine biologist or
person qualified to address issues of marine wildlife, and a member of
the Board of Public Works. Representatives of other user groups and
interested citizens could be added if necessary. The creation of this
commission would hopefully provide the kind of full-time, active
attention to the increasingly important issues of care and maintenance
of our public parks that is desperately needed. In a city with the
public facilities and resources of Ithaca, a Park Commission is long
overdue.
If there are any questions regarding these comments, please address
them to Barbara E. Ebert, Executive Director, Historic Ithaca, Inc. ,
120 North Cayuga Street, Ithaca, or call (607) 273-6633.
T C
T
TOMPKINS COUNTY TRUST COMPANY
110 NORTH TIOGA STREET
ITHACA,NEW YORK 14850
May 12, 1975
Mr. Joseph A. Rundle
Ithaca City Clerk
Ithaca, New York 14850
Dear Mr. Rundle:
I have been reviewing papers in the Estate of Allan H. Treman in
connection with our responsibilities as Co-Executor of his estate.
I notice that amongst them is a letter of January 21, 1975, to
you in which Mr. Treman resigned as chairman of the Stewart Park
Commission and suggested to you that the Commission meet to appoint
a new chairman.
At this point, of course, it will be necessary also for the Commission
to nominate a new member to the Commission to replace the late Allan
Treman.
Our bank, as trustee of the Stewart Park funds, would be happy to
offer any assistance to you in connection with the orderly re-
organization of the Commission and the development of a plan for
use of the funds now on hand.
The public spirit of both Edwin C. Stewart and Allan Treman is a
credit to our community. Continuation and completion of the develop-
ment of Stewart Park would be a fitting memorial to each of these
distinguished citizens.
Cordially,
Courtney Craw ord
Vice Presiden and Trust Officer
CC:ad
c.c. James J. Clynes, Esq.
TF 1053
•
TROWBRIDGE • TROWBRIDGE ASLA r F
Environmental Designers,Landscape Planners eR
and Landscape Architects
e ��� JUN 16 198
REIEb --
June 15, 1987 ': JUN 1 `'s 1987 12 of
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
LOPMENT
Ithaca, N.Y.
MEMO: -!
To: Members of S.P.A.G. r 1'
Citizens to Save Stewart Park
and others who are reviewing the
Stewart Park Design Plan Manual
Attached please find the draft copy of the Appendix for the Stewart Park
Design Plan Manual which includes Phasing Recommendations and the Cost
Estimate. In order to prepare the manual for the scheduled July 9th S.P.A.G.
meeting we request that all comments concerning the Stewart Park plan and
manual be submitted to our office by Friday June 26, at 5:00 p.m.. If you
have any questions concerning the manual and plan please do not hesitate to
call our office • 277-1400.
Sincerely,
(sok, .
Peter Trowbridge
Principal
1345 Mecklenburg Road
Ithaca,New York 14850
607 277-1400
AnDendix Stewart Park Design Plan Manual
Phasing Recommendations
Phasing Recommendations
Phasing of Park Improvements
As outlined in the Park Design Plan, the proposed Stewart Park
improvements fall into 3 phasing categories:
1. Stage One: 0-2 year period
2. Stage Two: 2-5 year period
3_ Stage Three: long range over next 5-8 year period
There are both high and low priority concerns in each of the above stages.
In addition, certain specific improvements are directly tied to other
improvements to ensure the success and efficient functioning of such
improvements. This situation makes it difficult to definitively separate them
or suggest that they occur in a linear fashion. For the purposes of this
report phasing recommendations have been divided into sections A-W,
corresponding with the sections throughout the manual.
Many of the improvements in Stage One fit into the annual operating
budget allocated for the the park's maintenance. Capital projects such as
architectural restoration fall into Stage Two. These will inevitably require
combined park and outside funding to fulfill the design intentions. Stage
Three involves low priority park amenities.
Park-Wide Infrastructure Improvements
Large scale improvements are directly tied to the park infrastructure,
underground utilities, lighting and road system. It is important that all park
improvements be done in a logical construction sequence, so as not to disrupt
improvements undertaken later. For example, new underground utilities
should be installed prior to installing new lawns and plantings. Therefore it
is paramount that the road reconstruction and park utilities be considered at
the front end of park improvements. In the attached Phasing Matrix,
infrastructure improvements which occur throughout the park, are
separated into a single category.
Summary of Park Improvements Outlined in Phasing Matrix
In summary, the following improvements fall into the three stages of
recommended development.
I_ Stage One Improvements
To begin immediately and take place in the next two years
Rehabilitation of Utilities
Storm drainage should be coordinated with road construction and sewer and
electrical services with planned architectural renovation and construction.
Roadway improvements-
Road realignment, drainage and the redistributing of parking spaces should
be directly tied to improvements as they are carried on in the park.
Demolition and Removal
of existing asphalt and incompatible building structures.
Vegetation Restructuring
Wildlife Pond, Memorial Garden, South Glade and Lagoon
Shoreline Improvements
Includes regrading Fall Creek, Lagoon and lake shores; restoration of
existing Cayuga shoreline riprap; installation of new riprap; establishing
vegetation on existing gabions; removal of concrete ramp north of Main
Pavilion Complex; regrading of lake shoreline north of Main Pavilion
Complex; recontouring of Lagoon and Wildlife Pond Lagoon dredging.
Path improvements
South Glade, Wildlife Pond, Fall Creek and Memorial Garden
Improved Waterfront accessibility
rowing dock on Fall Creek, small craft dock on lagoon
Redistribution and addition of picnic tables, benches and barbeques
Park Entrance Gateway
Relocate Active Recreation Factilities
Move softball to the eastern end of the park, and relocate tennis courts and
active recreation from western end of park
Relocation of Play equipment
Development of Building Restoration Plans
Boathouse, Main Pavilion Complex, Tea Pavilion
Fund Raising for Park Building Restoration
2_ Stage Two Improvements
To be undertaken in the next 2-5 year period
The restoration, rehabilitation and programming of the main park structures
is a priority concern in Stage Two Improvements.
Cascadilla Boathouse
- structural and foundation rehabilitation
- exterior decking and facade renovations
- interior restoration and redevelopment
Main Pavilion Complex
- restoration of dance pavilion
- restoration of picnic pavilion
Relocate Playground Spray Pool
Contract with architect to design Lagoon Pavilion
Install Mayor Stewart Memorial Garden and Paths
3_ Stage Three Improvements
To take place in the next 5-8 year period
The addition of new park structures and spaces are among long term
improvements including the following:
Restoration of Tea Pavilion
Lagoon Pavilion
Relocated tennis courts
Animated Play Structures
Central Courtyard Space of Main Pavilion Complex
Overlook Pavilion
Municipal Pier
Phasing Matrix
PHASING MATRIX
Stage One: 0-2 years Stage Two: 2-5 years Stage Three: 5-8 years
OVERALL PARK IMPROVEMENTS
Stage One
ROADWAY AND UTILITIES
THE ROADWAY REDEVELOPMENT
COULD TAKE PLACE IN TWO STAGES.
USING THE FLAGPOLE AS A
MID-POINT, REDEVELOPMENT
OF THE WESTERN ROAD AND
LOOP ARE A HIGH PRIORITY
AND SHOULD TAKE PLACE
IMMEDIATELY. THIS WILL ALLOW FOR
THE STABILIZATION OF THE FALL CREEK
SHORELINE.THE ROAD LENGTH
EAST OF THE FLAGPOLE COULD
BE UNDERTAKEN IN A SECOND PHASE.
k REMOVE EXISTING ROADWAY AND
AND STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM AS
REQUIRED
B. BURY ABOVE GROUND
UTILITIES
C. IN STALL NEW STORM DRAINAGE
SYSTEM
D. IN STALL UNDERGROUND CONDUIT FOR
NEW STREET LIGHTING
E. CONSTRUCT ROADWAY AND
PARKING AREAS
F. INSTALL NEW LIGHTING STANDARDS
ALONG PARK ROADWAY.
G. INSTALL NEW PARK SIGNAGE ASSOCIATED
WITH ROADWAY.
AREA A
stage One Stage Tvo Stage Three
k REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT ON A. INSTALL PREFABRICATED A. ONGOING MAINTENANCE OF
EAST AND SOUTH SIDE OF CASCADILLA 120' WIDE ROWING DOCK BOATHOUSE
BOATHOUSE ON FALL CREEK
B. REMOVE PARK STORAGE NEEDS B. RE STORE EXTERIOR
FROM BOATHOTJ SE AND RELOCATE OF BOATHOUSE AND CONSTRUCT
TO LAKE STREET D.P.W.. NEW DECKING ON NORTH SIDE.
C. RESEED AND VEGETATE THE AREAS
WHERE ASPHALT HAS BEEN REMOVED. C. REHABILITATE INTERIOR
REMOVE VEGETATION AS REQUIRED OF BOATHOUSE
ON FALL CREEK TO ENABLE NEW
RIPRAP AND ROWING DOCK D. CONSTRUCT EXTERIOR
WALKS AND ENTRY TO
BOATHOUSE.
D. INSTALL RIPRAP AND BULKHEAD ON
FALL CREEK SHORELINE
E. CONTRACT WITH A
PRESERVATION ARCHITECT TO REVIEW
BOATHOUSE RENOVATION
F. UNDERTAKE FUNDRAISING FOR
BOATHOUSE EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR
RESTORATION AND RENOVATION
•
AREA B
Stage One Singe Tvo Stage Three
A. REMOVE FENCE FROM AROUND A. BUILD OVERLOOK PAVILION A. CONTINUE TO ESTABLISH VEGETATION
DUCK POND
B. DEVELOP INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE ON
B. REMOVE SWANS FROM PARK B. CONTINUE TO ESTABLISH AND WALKWAY
MANAGE VEGETATION
C. REGRADE POND SHORELINE AND
CREATE ISLAND WITH SUBMERGED C. CONSTRUCT NEW FOOTBRIDGE
EARTHEN DAM TO ISLAND
D. SELECTIVELY CLEAR DETERIORATED D. INSTALL NEW BENCHES
VEGETATION FROM SHORELINE
E. DEVELOP WALKWAY AROUND POND
E. ESTABLISH VEGETATION ON
INSIDE EDGE OF POND
F. BEGIN TO REPAIR AND INSTALL
RIPRAP ON LAKE SHORELINE
AREA C
Stage Oie Stage Tvo Stage Three
A. REMOVE GAB IONS ALONG A. CONSTRUCT NEW PATH ALONG UPPER
SHORELINE TO ACCOMODATE SLOPE AND INSTALL BENCHES
NEW GRADING
B. RELOCATE ROAD BACK FROM
WATER'S EDGE TO ACCOMODATE B. MAINTAIN SLOPE WITH MOWING
NEW GRADING PROGRAM
C. REGRADE SHORELINE AND INSTALL C. MAINTAIN PURPLE OSIER WILLOW
RIPRAP AT TOE WITH PERIODIC PRUNING
D.REVEGETATE WATER'S EDGE
WITH EROSION CONTROL PLANTING
AREA D
Stage One Stage Two Stage Three
A. CONTRACT WITH ARCHITECT TO A.UNDERTAKE DEVELOPMENT OF LAGOON
TO DESIGN LAGOON PAVILION TO PAVILION AND BOAT DOCKS
ACCOMODATE RE STROOM S AND
BOAT RENTAL
AREA E
Stage One Stage Two Stage Three
A. REGRADE SHORELINE ALONG
FALL CREEK
B. ESTABLISH VEGETATION ALONG
FALL CREEK: INSTALL TOPSOIL ON
EXISTING GAB IONS AND PLANTWITH
SHRUB AND GRASS SPECIES
C.DEVELOP FOOTPATH AROUND
SOUTH GLADE
D. INSTALL ADDITIONAL BENCH!S
E. ESTABLISH VEGETATION IN
SOUTH GLADE
AREA F
Stage One Stage Two Stage Three
A. CONSULT WITH NYSDEC REGkRDING INSTALL IMPOUNDMENT STRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT OF FISH HABITAT IN TO MAINTAIN WATER LEVEL IN
LAGOON POND FOR ICE-SKATING, AND TO
ENCOURAGE FISH HABITAT
B. DREDGE LAGOON
AREA G
Stage Oa,e Stage Tvo Stage Three
A. REGRADE SHORELINE USING A.INSTALL NEW BENCHES
FILL FROM DREDGING AND PICNIC TABLES
B. ESTABLISH VEGETATION ALONG
LAGOON EDGE
C. DEVELOP BEACH AREA ALONG
LAGOON EDGE
AREA H
Stage Ole Stage Tvo Stage Three
A. RECONSTRUCT ROADWAY AND A. CONSTRUCT FISHING DECKS C. INSTALL INTERPRETIVE
DIAGONAL PARKING SIGNS
B. PLANT NEW VEGETATION B. IMPLEMENT "ART IN D. CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL
ALONG LAGOON IN THE PARK" PROGRAM FISHING DECKS BASED ON
C. INSTALL BENCHES COMMUNITY DESIRE
D. ORGANIZE COMMUNITY
ART IN THE PARK PROJECT
AREA I
Stage One Stage Two Stage Three
A. REMOVE RIP RAP SHORE AND A. ON-GOING MAINTENANCE OF
REUSE IN OTHER AREAS OF THE SHORELINE
PARK
B. REGRADE THE SLOPE TO THE WATER
TO CREATE A PEBBLE BEACHFRONT
C. INSTALL NEW PICNIC TABLES,
BENCHES, SWINGS AND BBQ'S
AREA J
Stage One Stage Tvo Stage Thee
A. REMOVE TENNIS COURTS FROM A. INSTALL BB Q'S AND
AREA J AND RESEED WITH GRASS PICNIC TABLES IN AREA
B. REMOVE BASEBALL BACKSTOP
FROM AREA J
C. REMOVE PARKING FROM THE
"BEND IN THE ROAD'
D. UNDERTAKE PLANTING OF
NEW SPECIMEN TREES AROUND
THE PERIMETER OF THE WEST
FIELD
E. BEGIN INSTALLING PICNIC
TABLES AND BBQ'S
AREA K
Stage One Stage Tvo Stage Three
A. FILL SHORELINE TO REPLACE A. ADD NEW PICNIC TABLES, BBQ'S
FILL WHICH HAS BEEN ERODED,
REBUILD RIPRAP B. CONSTRUCT OVERLOOK INCLUDING
NEW BATTERED WALL WITH
BENCHES AND BOLLARDS
AREAL
Stage Oie I Stage Two Stage Three
A. CONTRACT WITH A PRESERVATION A. CREATE WALKWAY BETWEEN A. RESTORCE HISTORIC
ARCHITECT TO DEVELOP RESTORATION TEA PAVILION AND MAIN DETAILS TO TEA PAVILION
PLANS FOR THE PAVILION COMPLEX
TEA PAVILION
B. INSTALL BENCHES AND LIGHTING
ALONG WALKWAY CONNECTING
TEA PAVILION
TO MAIN PAVILION COMPLEX
AREA M
Stage Ore ) Stage Tvo Stage Three
A. RELOCATE PLAY EQUIPMENT A. RECONSTRUCT AND RELOCATE A. AUGMENT PLAY EQUIPMENT WITH
TO OPEN UP EAST-WEST SPRAY POOL LARGE SCALE PLAY STRUCTURE ON
CONNECTION IN PARK SOUTH END OF PLAY AREA
B. INSTALL AND MAINTAIN WOODCHIPS B. ADD NEW B B Q'S AND BENCHES B. INSTALL NEW DECORATIVE FENCE
AROUND EQUIPMENT AROUND PERIMETER OF PLAY AREA AROUND CAROUSEL
C. REMOVE SHEDS
D. ELIMINATE ALL EQUIPMENT NOT
CONSISTENT WITH ESTABLISHED
TYPOLOGY
AREA N
Stage One Stage Tvo Stage Three
A. REMOVE ASPHALT FROM A. RENOVATE A. CONSTRUCT CENTRAL
BETWEEN PAVILIONS DANCE PAVILION AND PICNIC COURTYARD AND PERGOLA
PAVILION TO MAKE
B. RESEED AND VEGETATE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE
AREA BETWEEN PAVILIONS
C. REMOVE MAINTENANCE
FUNCTIONS FROM DANCE PAVILION B. DEVELOP CONSTRUCTION
AND RELOCATE TO LAKE STREET DOCUMENTS FOR CENTRAL
DPW. MAINTAIN A SMALL STORAGE COURTYARD
AREA ASSOCIATED WITH THE
PAVILION COMPLEX
D. CONTRACT WITH A PRESERVATION
ARCHITECT TO REVIEW DANCE PAVILION
AND PICNIC PAVILION RESTORATION
E. UNDERTAKE FUNDRAISING EFFORT
FOR PAVILION COMPLEX RESTORATION
AREA 0
Stage One Stage Tvo Stage Three
A. REMOVE CONCRETE RAMP FROM
SHORELINE
B. REGRADE SHORELINE TO CREATE
GRASS SLOPE WITH RIPRAP
INSTALLED AT TOE
C. INSTALL WATERFRONT
RETAINING AND SEAT WALL
AREA P
Stage One Stage Tvo Stage Three
A. DEVELOP CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
FOR MUNICIPAL PIER.
B. CONSTRUCT MUNICIPAL PIER
AREA Q
Stage Ole Stage Two Stage Three
A. REMOVE DIAGONAL ROADWAY A. INSTALL PEDESTRIAN PATH A. COMPLETE MEMORIAL GARDEN
LEADING TO MAIN PAVILION SYSTEM AND DEDICATE RESTORATION
CONPLEH
A. INSTALL FORMAL GARDEN AND
B. REMOVE MANICURED HEDGES ASSOCIATED PATHS WITH COMMUNITY
TO OPEN UP SPACE SPONSORSHIP- RELOCATE AND
INCORPORATE ROSE GARDEN TO THIS
C. BEGIN TO ESTABLISH NEW AREA.
VEGETATION
B. INSTALL ADDITIONAL BENCHES,
D. INSTALL BENCHES SIGNAGE
AREA R
Stage Ole Stage Two Stage Three
A. RELOCATE PATH AND ENTRY A. CONSTRUCT SANCTUARY GATE
TO FUERTES BIRD SANCTUARY
B. REVEGETATE SHORELINE
ALONG DRAINAGE WAY
AREA 3
Stage Oae Stage Two Stage Three
A. RELOCATE BACKSTOP TO A. INSTALL NEW PICNIC TABLES
AREAS AND BENCHES
B. ADD PICNIC TABLES ALONG
NORTH SIDE OF SPACE AND
INSTALL BBQ'S
C. BEGIN TREE PLANTING
ALONG EDGE OF SPACE
AREA T
Stage One ' Stage Tvo Stage Three
A. INSTALL FENCE ALONG A. REMOVE ROSE GARDEN
RAILWAY R.O.W. FOR SAFETY AND RELOCATE TO AREA Q
AND TO INSURE A SINGLE
PEDESTRIAN RAIL CROSSING
B. CONTINUE MOWING MAINTENANCE
PROGRAM INSIDE OF FENCE
AREA U
Stage One Stage Two Stage Three
A. RECONSTRUCT ROADWAY
TO CREATE NEW GREEN
ROAD MEDIAN AT PARK
ENTRANCE
B. CONSTRUCT NEW GATEWAY
ENTRANCE TO STEWART PARK
WITH DROP OFF
C. INSTALL NEW TREE PLANTING
AT ENTRANCE AND ALONG
ROUTE 13 ENTRY RAMP
AREA V
Stage One Stage Tvo Stage Three
A. RESTORE RIPRAP TO UPGRADE A. INSTALL NEW TENNIS COURTS
CURRENT ERODED CONDITION
B. INSTALL NEW FILL
ALONG SHORELINE IN
COMBINATION WITH RIPRAP
C. DEVELOP SHORELINE JETTY
IN COMBINATION WITH SHORELINE
IMPROVEMENTS- RIPRAP EDGE
D. ADD PICNIC TABLES AND
BARBEQUES TO THIS AREA
E. INSTALL NEW TREES
aargy a ig ass, aatg aap 0211
vaav
Cost Estimate
•
COST ESTIMATE
STEWART PARK
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1987
Preliminary Draft
The Cost Estimate outlined below is divided into sections that correspond to the sections of the Park
as they are described in the Manual. All site-work impnovenints are included. Renovation and
restoration of existing park buildings is not included in the cost estimate. Architectural restoration
costs will need to be generated based on final restoration plans.
All cost are 1987 costs and will need to be adjusted for inflation on an annual basis.
Cost Estimate Summary
Area A:Cascadilla Boathouse and Roving Docks 378,281.00
Area B:Wildlife Pond and Overlook Pavilion 102,028.00
Area C:Fall Creek Shoreline 62,192.00
Area D:Lagoon Pavilion 198,651.00
Area E: South Glade 32,890.00
Area F:Lagoon 93,437.00
Area G:Lagoon Shoreline 12,450.00
Area H:Art in the Park 53,099.00
Area I:BeachiLake Shoreline 18,687.00
Area J:West Field 76,935.00
Area K:Lake Shoreline 108,175.00
Area L:Tea Pavilion 23,885.00
Area M:Playground 85,940.00
Area N:Central Pavilion Courtyard 557,623.00
Area 0:Lake Shoreline 85,686.00
Area P:Municipal Pier 481,620.00
Area Q:Mayor Stewart Memorial Garden 86,204.00
Area R:Fuertes Gate-Lagoon Edge 7,521.00
Area S:East Field 64,400.00
Area T:Railvay Fence 74,750.00
Area U:Park Entrance 34,619.00
Area V: Lake Shoreline 109,774.00
Area W:Tennis Courts 31,809.00
Area X:Parkvide Roadway,Parking and Storm-Water System 1,116 613.00
Total $3,897,269.00
Area A:The proposed costs for Area A include the entry court to the Cescaudilla Boathouse,the
proposed Boathouse deck that overlooks the Wiwifp Pond,the roving dock for the cascadilla Boat
Club,and general landscaping and shoreline stabilization. Restoration of the Boathouse struucut e
itself is not included in the estimate.
Area A
Cascadlla Boathouse and
Roving Docks along Fall
Creek
Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total
1. Roving Dock
a. Prefab Dock $40,000. $50,000. $50,000.
b. Conc. Bulk Head-
12"x4' 135 L.F. $70.00 L.F. 9,450.
c. Decking 880 S.F. 18.00 S.F 15,840.
d. Rip Rap Shore Stab. 120 S.Y. 40.00 S.Y. 4,800.
2. Decking 7900 S.F. 22.00 S.F 173,800.
3. Stone Veneer Seat Walls
To Frost 175 L.F. 100.00 L.F. 17,500.
4. Stone Paving For Walks 1200 S.F. 12.00 S.F. 14,400.
5. Entry Gate(Stone Columns) 2-16"x16" 980.00 Ea. 1,960.
6. Landscaping
a. Seeding 8400 S.F. 350.00/1000 S.F. 2,940.
b. Trees 6 300.00 1,800.
c. Shrubs 30 48.00 1,440.
7. Furnishings
a. Picnic Tables 4 1,800.00 Ea. 7,200.
b. Deck Furniture 20 Tables 1,200.00 per set 24,000.
and chairs
c. Water Fountain 1 650.00 Ea. 650.
Gall mounted)
8. Paths
a. 8' Stone Asphalt 120 L.F. 10.00 L.F. 1,200.
b. 6' Stone Asphalt 170 L.F. 8.00 L.F. 1,360.
Total $328,340.00
1596 Contingency 49,351.00
Total Area A $377,691.00
Area B
Wildlife Pond and
Overlook Pavilion
Est Quan. Unit Cost Total
1. Overlook Pavilion 500 S.F. 28.00 S.F. $14,000.
2. Prefab Movable Floating
Dock Bridge 4'x24' $2,800 $2,800.
3. Regrade Pond Edge $2,500.
4. Lake Shoreline Rip-Rap 675 S.Y. 40.00 S.Y. 27,000.
5. Landscaping
a. 'Nees 25 300.00 Ea. 7,500.
b. Shrubs 175 48.00 Ea. 8,400.
c. Perennials and Grasses 2500 S.F. 7.50 S.F. 18,750.
6. Furnishings
a. Benches 7 900.00 Ea. 6,300.
b. Interpretive Signage 4 75.00 Ea. 300.
7. Paths
a. 4' Sand 650 L.F. 1.80 L.F. 1,170.
Total- 88,720.00
15%Contingency 13,308.00
Total Area B $102,028.00
Area C
Fall Creek Shoreline
Est Q . Unit Cost Total
1. Grading 4,000 C.Y. 6.50 C.Y. $26,000.00
2. Landscaping
a. Seeding 38,000 S.F. 350.00110005.F. $13,300.00
b. Trees 8 300.00 Ea. 2,400.00
c. Shrubs 60 48.00 Ea. 2,880.00
3. Furnishings
a. Benches 5 900.00 Ea. 4,500.00
4. Paths
a. 8' Stone Asphalt 220 L.F. 10.00 L.F. 2,200.00
b. 6' Stone Asphalt 350 L.F. 8.00 L.F. 2,800.00
Total- $54,080.00
15%Contingency $ 8,112.00
Total Area C $62,192.00
Area D
Lagoon Pavilion
Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total
1. Lagoon Pavilion&Boat Rental
a. Open Air Pavilion 3150 S.F. 35.00 S.F. 110,250.00
b. Decking 1130 S.F. 18.00 S.F. 20,340.00
c. Prefab Floating Dock 6'x65' 5,500.00 5,500.00
2. Furnishings
a. Deck F uritituue 30 Tables 1200.lper set 36,000.00
and chairs
c. Water Fountain 1 650.00 Ea. 650.00
Nall mounted)
Total- $172,740.00
159 Contingency $25,911.00
Total Area D $198,651.00
•
Area E
South Glade
Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total
1. Establish Vegetation on
Existing Gabions 3500 S.F. 600.0011000 S.F. 2,100.00
2. Grading 460 C.Y. 6.50 C.Y. 3,000.00
3. Landscaping
a. Trees 6 300.00 1,800.00
b. Shrubs 50 48.00 2,400.00
c. Seeding 12,000 S.F. 350.0011000 S.F. 4,200.00
4. Furnishings
a. Benches 7 900.00 Ea. 6,300.00
5. Paths
a. 6' Stone Asphalt 1100 L.F. 8.00 L.F. 8,800.00
Total- $28,600.00
15%Contingency 4290.00
Total Area E $32,890.00
Area F
Lagoon
Est. Quart. Unit Cost Total
1. Dredge Lagoon 12,500 C.Y. 6.50 C.Y. 81,251100
15%contingency 12,187.00
Total 93,437.00
Area G
Lagoon Shoreline
Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total
1. Grade Shoreline
(included in Dredging,
Area F)
2. Landscaping
a. Seeding 19000 S.F. 350.00r1000S.F. 6,650.00
b. Trees 12 48.00 Ea. 576.00
3. Furnishings
a. Benches 2 900.00 Ea. 1,800.00
b. Picnic Tables 1 1,800.00 Ea. 1,800.00
Total- $10,826.00
15%Contingency 1,624.00
Total Area G 12,450.00
Area H
Fishing Decks and
Art in the Park*
*(excludes purchase of
sculpture)
Est Quan. Unit Cost Total
1. Fishing Platforms 4@384 S.F ea. 18.00 S.F 27,648.00
2. Landscaping
a. Seeding 7,500 S.F. 350.0011000 S.F. 2,625.00
b. Trees 5 300.00 Ea. 1,500.00
c. Shrubs 75 48.00 Ea. 3,600.00
3. Furnishings
a. Benches 6 900.00 Ea. 5,400.00
b. Picnic Tables 3 1,800.00 Ea. 5,400.00
Total- $46,173.00
15%Contingency 6.926.00
Total Area H 53,099.00
Area
Beach Lake Shoreline
Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total
1. Beach
Grading 230 C.Y. 6.50 C.Y. 1,500.00
Pea Stowe 350 C.Y. 3.00 C.Y. 1,050.00
2. Landscaping
a. Seeding 8,000 S.F. 350.0011000 S.F. 2,800.00
3. Furnishings
a. Nev Swings 2 2,030.00 4,000.00
b. Picnic Tables 3 1,800.00 5,400.00
c. BBQ 3 500.00 1,500.00
Total- $16,250.00
15%Contingency 2,437.00
Total Area I $18,687.00
Area J
West Field
Est Quan. Unit Cost Total
1. Landscaping
a. Trees 35 300.00 10,500.00
3. Furnishings
a. Picnic Tables 28 1,800.00 50,400.00
b. BBQ 12 500.00 6,000.00
Total- $66,900.00
15%Contingemr 10.035.00
Total Area J 76,935.00
Area K
Lake Shoreline
Est. Quan Unit Cost Total
1. Overlook Wall 155 L.F. 175.00 L.F. 27,125.00
2. Cayuga Lake Shore Stab. 733 S.Y. 40.00 S.Y. 30,000.00
(Riprap and Grading)
4. Landscaping
a. Trees 2 300.00 Ea. 600.00
5. Furnishings
a. Benches 4 900.00 Ea. 3,600.00
b. Picnic Tables 12 1,800.00 Ea. 21,600.00
c. BBQ 8 500.00 Ea. 4,000.00
d. Bollards 5 980.00 Ea. 4,900.00
6. Paths
a. 6' Shone Asphalt 280 L.F. 8.00 L.F. 2,240.00
Total- $94,065.00
15%Contingency 14,110.00
Total Area K $108,175.00
Area L
Playground
Est Quan. Unit Cost Total
1. Remove and Relocate -- -- 2,500.00
Spray Pool*
(includes plumbing and concrete)
2. Proposed Play Equip.
a. Nev Svingset- Small 1 $ 1,200. $ 1,200.00
b. Nev Slide- Small 1 $ 900. $ 900.00
c. Nev Slide-Large 1 $ 1,100. $ 1,110.00
d. Nev Sand Box 1-25' Dia. $ 500. $ 500.00
e. Nev Large Play Unit 1 $10,000. $10,000.00
3. Carousel Fence
a. Concrete Wall 175 L.F. 20.00 L.F. 3,500.00
b. Aluminum Fence 175 L.F. 45.00 L.F. 7,875.00
4. Landscaping:
a. Trees 24 300.00 Ea. 7,200.00
b. Wood Chips 6400 S.F. 1.29 S.F. 8,256.00
5. Furnishings
a. Benches 5 900.00 Ea. 4,500.00
b. Picnic Tables 14 1,800.00 Ea. 25,200.00
c. BBQ 5 500.00 Ea. 2,500.00
Total- $74,731.00
15%Contingency 11,209.00
Total Area M $85,940.00
Area M
Tea Pavilion
Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total
1. Path
a. 6' Stone Asphalt 200 L.F 8.00 L.F. 1,600.00
b. Concrete Pad 5" 1650 S.F. 3.80 S.F. 6,270.00
2. Furnishings
a. Movable Tables 10 1,200.00 per set 12,000.00
c. Water Fountain 1 900.00 Ea. 900.00
Total- $20,770.00
1596 Contingency 3,115.00
Total Area L $23,885.00
Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total
Area N
Central Pavilion Courtyard
1. Construct Hey Pergola 4,000 S.F. 28.00 S.F. $112,000.00
2. Concrete Retaining Walls
a. 12"Wide x 5' Deep 390 L.F. 175.00 L.F. 68,250.00
3. Paving
a. Concrete-5" 25,300 S.F. 3.80 S.F. 98,140.00
b. Concrete Pavers 12,350 S.F 14.00 S.F. 172,900.00
4. Concrete Steps 400 L.F. 22.50 L.F. 9,000.00
5. Furnishings
a. Movable Tables and Chairs 14 1200.001set 16,800.00
b. Bollard Lights 10 980.00 Ea. 9,800.00
c. Other Lighting
Total- $484,890.00
15%Contingency 72,733.00
Total Area N $557,623.00
Area 0
Lake Shoreline
Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total
1. Grading 615 C.Y. 6.50 C.Y. 4,000.00
2. Stone Steps
350 L.F. 110.00 L.F. 38,500.00
3. Landscaping
a. Seeding 27,000 S.F. 350.0011000 S.F. 9,450.00
4. Furnishings
a. Picnic Tables 6 1,800.00 Ea. 10,800.00
b.Concrete Bollards 12 980.00 Ea. 11,760.00
Total- 74,510.00
15%Contingency 11,176.00
Total 85,686.00
Area P
Municipal Pier
Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total
1. Construct Nev Pier 300 L.F. 1335 L.F. 400,000.00
2. Furnishings
a. Perm. Benches 10 900.00 9,000.00
b. Bollard Lighting 10 980.00 9,800.00
Toil- $418,800.00
15%Contingey 62,820.00
Total Area P 481,620.00
Area Q.
Mayor stcvarc Memorial
Garden
Est. Qum. Unit Cost Total
1. Landscaping
a. Trees 39 300.00 Ea. 11,700.00
b. Shrubs 150 48.00 7,200.00
c. Perennials 1000 S.F. 7.50 S.F. 7,500.00
2. Furnishings
a. Benches 18 900.00 Ea. 16,200.00
3. Paths
a. 10' Stone Asphalt 1950 L.F. 12.00 L.F. 23,400.00
b. 6' Stone Asphalt 1120 L.F. 8.00 L.F. 8,960.00
Total- $74,960.00
1596 Contingency 11,244.00
Total Area Q $86,204.00
Area R
Fnertes Gate-
Lagoon Edge
Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total
1. Landscaping
a. Trees 9 300.00 2,700.00
b. Shrubs 80 48.00 3,840.00
Total- $6,540.00
15%Contingency 981.00
Total Area R $7,521.00
Area S
East Field
Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total
1. Grading 230 C.Y. 6.50 C.Y. 1,500.00
2. Backstop 1 2,000. Ea. 2,000.00
3. Landscaping
a. Seeding 30,000 S.F. 350.11000 S.F. 10,500.00
b. 'Dees 23 300.00 Ea. 6,900.00
4. Furnishings
a. Benches 7 900.00 Ea. 6,300.00
b. Picnic Tables 16 1,800.00 Ea. 28,800.00
Total- 56,000.00
15%Continge_y 8,400.00
Total Area S 64,400.00
Area T
Railvay Fence
Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total
1. Fence 2,600 L.F. 25.00 L.F. 65,000.00
Total- 65,000.00
159 Contingency 9,750.00
Total Area T 74,750.00
Area U
Park Entrance
Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total
1. Entry Gate ------- - 14,000.00
2. Landscaping
a. Seeding 25,000 S.F. 350.0011000 S.F. 8,750.00
b. Trees 23 300.00 Ea. 6,900.00
3. 6' Asphalt Walk 380 L.F. 6.00 L.F. 2,280.00
Total- 17,930.00
15%Contingency 2,689.00
Total Area U $34,619.00
Area V
Lake Shoreline
Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total
1. Cayuga Lake Shore Stab. 317 S.Y. 40.00 S.Y. $12,681.00
2. Grading
Earth Jetty 2350 C.Y. 6.50 C.Y. 15,275.00
3. Landscaping
a. Trees 5 300.00 Ea. 15,00.00
4. Furnishings
a. Benches 4 900.00 3,600.00
b. Nev Springs 7 2,000.00 14,000.00
c. Picnic Tables 23 1,800.00 41,400.00
d. BBQ 14 500.00 7,000.00
Tota1- 95,456.00
15%Continge_y 14,318.00
Total Area Y 109,774.00
Area W
Tennis Courts
Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total
1. Nev Tennis Courts 1,600 S.Y. 10.00 S.Y. 16,000.00
2. Nev Fence 480 L.F. 12.00 L.F. 5,760.00
3. Landscaping
a. Seeding 2400 S.F. 350.0011000 S.F. 840.00
b. Trees 4 300.00 Ea. 1,200.00
4. 6' Asphalt Walk 370 L.F. 8.00 L.F. 2,960.00
6. Furnishings
a. Water Fountain 1 900.00 Ea. 900.00
Total- 27,660.00
15%Continge_y 4,149.00
Total Area W 31,809.00
Area X
ParkvideRoadvay,
Parking and
Storm Water system
Est Quart. Unit Cost Total
1. Demolition of Existing
Road and Parking
a. Asphalt Removal 232,000 S.F. 1.25 S.F. 290,000.00
b. Curb Removal 4360 L.F. 2.00 L.F. 8,720.00
2. Cont. Nev Roadway
a. Nev Asphalt Roadway and
Parking Areas 309,365.00
18' - 1200 L.F.
22' - 1600 L.F.
40' - 400 L.F.
44' - 700 L.F.
66' - 825 L.F.
b. Neer Garbing 3,910 L.F. 22.00 L.F. 86,020.00
3. Storm Drainage
a. Catch Basins 35 2,500.00 Ea. 87,500.00
b. C.I. Pipe 3500 L.F. 15.00 L.F. 52,500.00
c. Trenching 3500 L.F. 20.00 L.F. 70,000.00
4. Street Lights 25 2,600.00 Ea. 65,000.00
5. Bury Overhead Utilities -- ---- coordinate
with NYSEG
Total- 969,105.00
159+6 Contingency 145,365.00
Total Area X $1,114,470.00