HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlans for Stewart Park Improvements-Citizens to Save Stewart Park 1983-1987 n
•
• J -�
PLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CONSULTANTS
310 W. STATE STREET
ITHACA NEW YORK
607.272• 2201 14850
•
16 Sept. 1983
City of Ithaca
108 East Green Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Attn: Mr. John Dougherty
Assistant to the Superintendent of Public Works
Dear Jack:
Enclosed is our proposal for an improvements plan for Stewart Park in
response to the City's request.
This is a very exciting project, in my opinion, both in concept and in the
future opportunities it will undoubtedly generate. I'm glad to see the
City taking an active interest in determining the long-range potential of
an area that is already a fine public waterfront space.
I believe I have assembled a team of professionals who will be able to
give the City an imaginative, realistic and sellable long-range plan for
the park. This will be our objective if we are fortunate enough to be
selected.
Very truly yours,
PLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CONSULTANTS
PfY1 111(:46/6411e-D-1-1's---
Thomas Niederkorn
TN:bj
i
PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO STEWART PARK
PROJECT BUDGET
1. DIRECT TECHNICAL LABOR $13,184.00
2. DIRECT NONSALARY COSTS
a. Contractual. $13,000
b. Expenses 1,000
14,000.00
3. OVERHEAD 2,600.00
4. TOTAL PROJECT COST $29,784.00
Submitted by:
PLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CONSULTANTS
310 WEST STATE STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
September 16, 1983
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE . 0
WORK ITEM NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG •
1. Assemble and review existing data
2. Spatial, functional and
structural analysis
3. Prepare schematic sketches
4. Special studies
5. Develop preliminary site plan
with narratives
6. Develop concept of visual
forms and materials
7. Present preliminary plan -
review feedback
8. Prepare final plan and phasing 1
9. Report production
10. Present final plan •
•
•
}
PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO STEWART PARK
PROPOSAL
Submitted by:
PLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CONSULTANTS
310 West State Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
September 16, 1983
•
A •
• 'LAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO STEWART PARK
•
PROPOSAL
September 16, 1983
A. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
This proposal is submitted by Planning/Environmental Research
Consultants in response to a request from the City of Ithaca.
The City intends to undertake a comprehensive, long-range plan
for future improvements to Stewart Park and adjacent land.
Stewart Park has long been one of the most attractive recreation
resources in the City.' It is part of a major public open space
complex at the foot of Cayuga Lake and flanking both sides of
the lake's inlet. On the east side of the inlet the complex
contains, in addition to the park, a 9-hole golf course, bird
sanctuary, biological field station and over 1/2 mile of the
Fall Creek tributary.
Over the years interest in, and use of, the Stewart Park com-
plex has changed; in some aspects this change has been substan-
tial. The City is interested in assessing this change and
responding to it in a coordinated way that will preserve exist-
ing amenity and tradition of the area and still take full ad-
vantage of improvement opportunities which are available. The
City wishes to hire a consultant to assist in this effort.
• As we view the project primary issues of interest to the City
are:
1. Identification of Appropriate Future Role and Space and
Facility Needs. A basic issue to be considered in planning
for Stewart Park is the future role that this complex will
play in the overall recreation system of the City of Ithaca
and this region. It is apparent that recreation needs and
habits are changing; new demands and pressures are being
placed on Stewart Park and most city recreational facili-
ties. Increased County population, spendable income, lei-
• sure time, mobility and desire for recreation and fitness
assure that interest in recreation will be even greater 10
years hence.
Given this rapid change and the tremendous recreation oppor-
tunities that Ithaca now enjoys, the question of how the
Stewart Park complex can best fit into the overall recreation
picture is 'aramout c. • re addressed in
' I y po icy related to park use and function needs rethink-
ing.
Available facilities in the complex will help to determine
the park's future role; defining that role will help to shape
the recreation space and facilities needed to fulfill that
role. At issue is whether or not existing park facilities
can be successfully expanded, modified or reorganized to
meet expected demand. Community reaction to any proposed
modification is also a significant consideration.
2. Competing Uses for Space Available. The amount of land avail-
able in the Stewart Park complex is limited and is presently
assigned to, and used for 'one recreation-related purpose or
another. In view of changing conditions and demands as de-
scribed in 1 above, is the available land being put to its
highest and best use? Is the bird sanctuary occupying space
that could best be used by a more intensive activity? Do
the zoo and tennis courts preempt land that could more suit-
ably be used for other purposes? Is the duck pond in a proper
location or could this land be devoted to a more active shore-
line use? These are examples that illustrate the real or
. potential conflicts that should be resolved in the long-range
park plan.
3. Parking and Circulation. Parking is an essential element of
the Stewart Park complex. At present, roadway and parking
areas occupy a relatively high percentage of parkland and
divide major functions. Prime shoreline space is often parked
solidly with cars; roadways cut off access to the water front;
there is serious and dangerous conflict between vehicular and
pedestrian traffic. What function should the circulation and
parking system fulfill? Is conflict inevitable? How can the
increasing number of vehicles using the park be best accommo-
dated?
4. Shoreline Extension and Optimum Water Front Usage. One im-
portant issue focuses on the question of defining the best
use of the resource for which Ithaca is famous - its shoreline
and waterways. Use of the lake at Stewart Park has•been cur-
tailed sharply due to poor water quality. The question to be
faced is whether or not shoreline modifications could be made
which would permit partial or full restoration of lake use.
The impact of such modifications on swimming, boating, fish-
ing and other lake activity must be determined. The natural
•
2
forces of current, turbidity and wind must be addressed.
The potential environmental impact of lakeshore alter-
ations should be considered in the design of such alter-
ations; the appropriate use of gained parkland should be
determined.
5. Implementation. The City hopes to carry out park im-
provements over a period of years in accordance with the
approved plan. Because a strong local commitment will be
necessary, recommendations in the plan must, in principal
at least, be acceptable to the community. Some of the
changes may be substantial and it is important that an
implementation schedule be established which would minimize
disruption of normal park activities. In addition, phasing
should be designed so that the park can continue to func-
tion as a substantially complete entity at the end of each
phase in the event subsequent stages were not completed.
6. Funding. Finding sources of funds for recommended improve-
ments will be an issue in Stewart Park as it is in every
capital improvement the City undertakes. Proposed park
improvements must be realistic but the plan should not be
• excessively intimidated by cost considerations. Potential
sources of funding for each major component must be ex-
' amined during the study and phasing of development should
be based, in large part, on funding opportunities.
It is not suggested, nor is it reasonable to assume that all
of these issues, and numerous related issues of less im-
portance, will be completely resolved at the conclusion of this
study. Obtaining additional technical data, making surveys
and environmental analyses, undertaking nonlocal reviews to
get reactions and approvals, and similar specific detailed
tasks must be completed before final design determinations on
many elements can be made. Sufficient information related to
all the issues outlined above should be obtained at this stage,
however, to enable the consultant to prepare a realistic plan
and the City to make informed decisions about future improve-
ments to the Stewart Park complex.
•
3
•
B. SCOPE OF WORK
1. Assemble and Review Existing Data. Existing data
which describe and measure present conditions in the
park complex will be assembled and reviewed. This would
include information related to land use, recreation
demand, traffic and parking, utilities, water currents, _
water quality, vegetation, soils, boating demand, ve-
hicular and pedestrian accessibility, condition of park
structures, operating and maintenance costs and prob-
. lems, improvements planned by public works,, and..sim=
filar pertinent information. Interviews with staff, key
officials and selected individuals will be made to
assess attitudes about the present use of the park and
its future potential.
It is understood that all existing information that is
presently available to the City will be provided to the
consultant at no charge, including maps, air photos and
reports. Because of the off-season nature of the time
period within which the plan is to be prepared, it is
anticipated that only limited original data will be ob-
tained at this stage. Additional needed data will be
identified, however, and, with City assistance, obtained
to the maximum extent possible within the limitations of
time, season of the year and budget.
2. Spatial, Functional and Structural Analysis. Analyze
current land use activity for each element of the plan,
apparent trends, and the structural condition, usefulness,
and restoration potential of major buildings. Each of the
major park functions will be analyzed and evaluated in
terms of space and facilities available and suitability of
present use. Existing park-related local policy will be
reviewed for appropriateness. Natural, operational and
legal constraints will be identified and assessed. Based
on interviews and supporting data, alternative roles and
functions for the several components of the park complex,
and strengths and limitations of each, will be developed
for discussion with staff and others as determined.
3. Prepare Schematic Sketches. Environmental and land use
information gathered in 1 and 2 above will be used to
establish a framework for assessing park potential.
Matrices will be developed to facilitate evaluation of
possible land use categories in terms of social and en-
vironmental values. The matrices will indicates restraints
as well as opportunities and will provide rationale and
support for the preparation of schematic sketches for the
4
park plan. Such sketches will be largely concep-
tual and diagrammatic showing relationships between
laud uses, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and
park facilities. Discussion of alternatives with
staff and officials at this point will be important.
4.. Special Studies. Two issues fundamental to the park's
future development will be given special emphasis. One
relates to the possibilities of shoreline enhancement
and the second involves the feasibility of golf course
expansion.
Opportunities for expanding the park to the north by
diking and filling portions of Cayuga Lake will be
examined. Calculations on the present shoreline con-
figuration, water flow and wind will be entered into a
computer program and verified by existing aerial
photographs and other data. At this stage, data not
presently available or easily obtained will be assumed.
The verified computer program will be used to assess the
likely impact on water circulation of design changes in
the shoreline configuration and alterations of the lake
and creek bottom. Suitable uses of filled land, and
other possibilities for improving water and shoreline use,
will be determined.
Golf course expansion potential will be evaluated by ex-
amining need, present layout and the feasibility of using
part or all of the bird sanctuary and biological field
station for this purpose. Alternatives and recommendations
for the future use of these three areas (golf course,
sanctuary, field station), including the eastern bank of
the inlet, will be prepared.
5. Develop Preliminary Site Plan. Reaction to the schematic
sketches (work item 3), and information from the special
studies (work item 4) will be incorporated into the prep-
aration of preliminary site plan for the entire complex.
Included in the plan will be the spatial and functional
relationships and linkages of all parkland uses and
activities, a vehicular circulation and parking layout,
shoreline treatment, lakeshore modifications, the location
and use of park structures, the location and treatment of
major landscaping elements and magnitude-of-cost estimates
for major improvements. Detailed design drawings and
specifications of renovated or new park structures and
landscaping features will not be possible in this study but
clear indications of the substance and character of such
improvements will be given..
5
•
`y
6. Develop Concept of Visual Forms and Materials. Pre-
pared concurrently with, and as a part of, the pre-
liminary site plan will be a landscape design plan for
the park. This plan will include consideration of
pedestrian circulation, modification of existing land.
forms, generalized drainage patterns, visual linkages
and sequences, and the use of landscaping to separate
or define functions, spaces and structures, frame
views, create visual interest and provide shade, back-
drops and wind protection. Criteria will be established
for the selection of plant material suited to the en-
vironmental characteristics of the site and compatible
with existing vegetation. The location and type of major
or critical plant groupings will be indicated and rec-
ommendations made for plant succession as important older
trees deteriorate or die.
•
7. Preparation of Final Plan and Phasing. Modification of
the preliminary site plan and landscape design plan will
be made based on review and discussion with City staff
and officials. The final park plan will include appro-
. priate modifications. Narratives and graphics will be
prepared to describe and illustrate recommended improve-
ments in the complex. The final plan will also include
a recommended priority listing for all improvements and an
implementation sequence to facilitate phasing of con-
struction and minimize disruption of normal park use.
Potential funding sources for various aspects of the
park's long-range development will be explored in con-
junction with the City staff.
8. Report Reproduction and Presentation. In accordance with
specifications in the RFP 20 copies of all written
material and 2 sets of drawings will be provided at the
preliminary plan stage. Fifty copies of all final plan
narratives and 5 sets of final drawings, including one
reproducible set, will be provided. The consultant will
be available for public presentations as required.
6
•
•
• •
C. CONSULTANTS BACKGROUND
We propose to undertake the Stewart Park plan as a multi-
disciplinary effort under the general direction and coordi-
nation of Planning/Environmental Research Consultants (PERC).
The team assembled for this project is experienced in doing
research, analysis, planning, architectural and landscaping
design and cost estimating. We can provide the facts, evalu-
ations, conclusions, alternatives and recommendations which
are needed in the decision-making process. The Principals
and their major functions are:
1. Thomas Niederkorn - program analysis, land use planning,
site design, environmental review.
2. Leonard Mankowski - architectural inspection and restora-
tion, site design, cost analysis.
3. James Glavin - site analysis, landscape architectural
design, site design, cost analysis.
4. James Liggett - hyrologic engineering, water flow analysis.
All principals have had extensive experience in their areas
of interest and would be directly involved in the project.
Resumes of training, experience and related projects are
attached as are brochures illustrating projects of Mr.
Mankowski and Mr. Glavin.
By combining our efforts, we feel we can offer the generalized
and special skills that will be required for this study, in-
cluding experience in building restoration, golf course, zoo
and marina design and the ability to study water circulation
and turbidity. In addition our long-term knowledge of Ithaca
and our awareness of the diverse interests that will focus on
this project will, we feel, provide us with valuable insights
on the problems and issues involved.
Generally, we would be available for pre-selection interviews
most afternoons or evenings with the exception of October 20
through the 24th when Mr. Mankowski will be out of town. We
can also arrange to meet on week-ends if that would be more con-
, venient. Some specific timing conflicts might be encountered
but we feel there is enough flexibility in our schedules to
accommodate your needs.
7
•
•
RESUME
JAMES A. LIGGETT
General:
Born: June 29, 1934, Los Angeles, California
Married
Citizen of U.S.A.
Education:
_ B. S. in Civil Engineering, Texas Technological
College, Lubbock, Texas, (1956) .
M. S. in Civil Engineering, Stanford University,
Stanford, California, (1957) .
Ph.D. in Civil Engineering, Stanford University,
Stanford, California, (1959) .
Experience:
Summers 1954 and 1955 - Texas Highway Department,
Jacksboro, Texas.
Summers 1956 and 1957 - U. S. Bureau of Reclamation,
Klamath Falls, Oregon, and Denver, Colorado.
September 1959 to August 1960 - Engineering Specialist,
Structural Dynamics Group, Chance Vought Aircraft,
Dallas, Texas.
September 1960 to June 1961 - Assistant Professor of
Civil Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
Wisconsin.
July 1961 to Present - Assistant Professor, Associate
Professor, and Professor of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
September 1967 to September 1968 - Long-term visitor,
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder,
Colorado. (On leave from Cornell . )
July 1974 to June 1975 - Visiting Professor at Univer-
sidad del Valle, Cali , Colombia (one-half time) and
Engineer at Corporacion Autonoma Regional del Cauca
(CVC) , Cali, Colombia (one-half time) under sponsorship
of the National Science Foundation and the Fulbright-
Hayes Program. (On leave from Cornell . )
•
N,
;
June and July 1977 - Visiting Erskine Fellow, University
of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
August and September 1982 - Visiting Professor, Univer-
sity of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. •
October 1982 through July 1983 - Visiting Distinguished
Scholar, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia •
(On leave from Cornell) .
Professional Societies :
Sigma Xi
Tau Beta Pi
International Association for Hydraulic Research
Committee on Use of Computers in Hydraulics and
Water Resources
American Society of Civil Engineers
Task Committee on Stratified Flow
Awards Committee
Fluid Dynamics Committee
Workshop on Dynamic Modelling of the Great Lakes
Committee on Stratified and Rotational Flows
Committee on Stochastic Hydraulics
Task Committee on Computational Hydraulics
Hydromechanics Committee
Consulting:
Consulting activities have included drainage and runoff
studies, determination of river flows, determination of
the hydraulic properties of various fluid devices, design
and calibration of fluid meters, sediment movement in
3 rivers, seepage problems, and various other miscellan-
1
eous projects.
Teaching:
1
Courses taught include:
Elementary Fluid Mechanics
Hydrology
Hydraulic Engineering
Advanced Fluid Mechanics I
Advanced Fluid Mechanics II
Open Channel Hydraulics
Free Surface Flow
Computer Programming
Dynamic Oceanography
Experimental and Numerical Methods in Fluid
Mechanics
Thermal Pollution
Unsteady Flow in Open Channels
Unsteady Hydraulics
Numerical Solutions to Civil Engineering Problems
v. •
•
The teaching activities have included advising arad-
uate and undergraduate students, designing curricula, and
supervising Master of Science and Doctor of Philosophy theses.
About 50% of all the graduate students have been of foreign
origin from all parts of the world.
Committees (Cornell University)
C.E. Curriculum Committee (Chairman)
Ad Hoc Committee on Professional Education in Civil Engineering
Dean's Search Committee for Director of C.E. (Chairman)
C.E. Field Representative
Engineering College Policy Committee
Crandall Prize Committee
Student Advisor
C.E. Auditing Committee
C.E. Display Committee
C.E. Student-Faculty Steering Committee
Several Ad-Hoc Promotion Committees
Search Committee for Distinguished Professor in Water Resources
Calendar Committee (Special Provost's Commission)
Professional Programs Committee
C.E. Executive Committee
Physical Sciences Committee of the Fellowship Board
Fulbriaht Selection Committee
Ad Hoc Committee to Study the Future of Geophysical Measure-
ments at Cornell (Chairman)
College of Engineering Nominating Committee (Chairman)
Use of Computers in the Undergraduate Curriculum in Civil
and Environmental Engineering (Chairman)
1i
•
Book:
J.A. Liggett and P.L-F. Liu, The Boundary Integral Equation Method for Porous
Media Flow, Allen and Unwin, London, 1983.
Publications:
J.A. Liggett, "Unsteady Open Channel Flow with Lateral Inflow", Technical Report
No. 2, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, 1959.
J.A. Liggett, "The Calculation of Three-Dimensional , Subsonic Airforces" , Report
No. EOR-13702, Chance Vought Aircraft, Dallas, Texas, 1960.
J.A. Liggett, "Wing-flap Combinations in Three-Dimensional , Subsonic Flow",
Report No. EOR-1308k, Chance Vought Aircraft, Dallas, Texas, 1960.
J.A. Liggett, "General Solution for Open-Channel Profiles", Jour. of the Hyd.
Div. , ASCE, Vol . 87, No. HY6, November, 1961 , 89-107.
J.A. Liggett and M. I. Esrig, "Pore-water Pressures Developed in an Earth Embank-
ment During Rapid Drawdown", Cornell University Water Resources Center, Ithaca,
New York, 1964.
J.A. Liggett and C. Hadjitheodorou, "Initial Motion Problem in Porous Media",
Jour. of the Hyd. Div. , ASCE, Vol. 91 , No. HY3, May, 1965, 61-80.
J.A. Liggett and S. Vasudev, "Slope and Friction Effects in Two-Dimensional , High
Speed Channel Flow", Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of the
International Association for Hydraulic Research, Leningrad, 1965.
J.A. Liggett, C.L. Chiu, and L.S Miao, "Secondary Currents in a Corner" , Jour.
of the Hyd. Div. , ASCE, Vol . 91 , No. HY6, November, 1965, 99-117.
J.A. Liggett and W.H. Graf, "Steady and Unsteady Effects on Discharge in a
River Connecting Two Reservoirs", Great Lakes Research Division, Publication
No. 15, 1966, 249-258.
J.A. Liggett and D.A. Woolhiser, "Difference Solutions of the Shallow Water
Equation" , Jour. of the Engr. Mech. Div. , ASCE, Vol . 93, No. EM2, April , 1967,
39-71 .
D.A. Woolhiser and J.A. Liggett, "Unsteady, One-Dimensional Flow Over a Plane -
the Rising Hydrograph" , Water Resources Research, Vol . 3, No. 3, Third Quarter,
1967, 753-771 .
R.J. Matthews and J.A. Liggett, "Flow in a Sharp Corner", Jour. of the Hyd. Div. ,
ASCE, Vol . 93, No. HY6, November, 1967, 387-407.
J.A. Liggett and D.A. Woolhiser, "The Use of the Shallow Water Eouations in Runoff
Computation" , Proceedings of the Third Annual American Water Resources Confer-
ence, San Francisco, November, 1967, 117-126.
J.A. Liggett, "Mathematical Flow Determination in Open Channels" , Jour. of the
Enor. Mech. Div. , ASCE, Vol . 94, No. EM4 , August, 1968, 947-963.
r
J.A. Liggett and C. Hadjitheodorou, "Circulation in Shallow, Homogeneous
Lakes", Jour. of the Hyd. Div. , ASCE, Vol. 95, No. HY2, March, 1969, 609-620.
J.A. Liggett, "Unsteady Circulation in Shallow, Homogeneous Lakes", Jour. of
the Hyd. Div. , ASCE, Vol . 95, No. HY4, July, 1969, 1273-1288.
J.A. Liggett, "Methods of Calculating Steady and Unsteady Currents in Homo-
geneous Lakes", Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress of the
International Association for Hydraulic Research, Kyoto, Japan, September,
1969.
J.A. Liggett, "A Cell Method for Computing Lake Circulation", Jour. of the
Hyd. Div. , ASCE, Vol. 96, No. HY3, March, 1970, 725-743.
K.K. Lee and J.A. Liggett, "Computation for Circulation in Stratified Lakes" ,
Jour. of the Hyd. Div., ASCE, Vol. 96, No. HY10, October, 1970, 2089-2115.
J.A. Liggett and K.K. Lee, "Properties of Circulation in Stratified Lakes",
Jour. of the Hyd. Div. , ASCE, Vol . 97, No. HY1, January, 1971, 15-29.
Y-L. Choi and J.A. Liggett, "Prediction of Lake Stratification" , ASCE Water
Resources Engineering Meeting (paper 1295) , Phoenix, Arizona, January, 1971.
J.A. Liggett, "An Application to Lake Dynamics", Stochastic Hydraulics, edited
by Chao-lin Chiu, (Proceedings of the First International Symposium on
Stochastic Hydraulics) University of Pittsburgh, 1971, 748-751.
R.H. Gallagher, J.A. Liggett, and S.T.K. Chan, "Finite Element Shallow Lake
Circulation Analysis" , Jour. of the Hyd. Div. , ASCE, Vol . 99, No. HY7, July,
1973, 1083-1096.
J.D. Newbold and J.A. Liggett, "Oxygen Depletion Model for Cayuga Lake",
Jour. of the Hyd. Div. , ASCE, Vol . 100, No. EE1, February, 1974, 41-59.
J.A. Liggett, "Basic Equations of Unsteady Flow" (Chapt. 2) , "Numerical
Methods of Solution of the Unsteady Flow Equations" (Chapt. 4 with J.A.
Cunge) , "Stability" (Chapt. 6) , and "Lake Circulation" (Chapt. 20) , Unsteady
Flow in Open Channels Vol . I, II, and III, Water Resources Publications, Fort
Collins, Colorado, 1975.
J.A. Liggett, "Stratified Lake Circulation by the Finite Element Method",
Proc. of the XVI Congress of the International Association for Hydraulic
Research, Vol . 3, Sao Paulo, Brazil , July, 1975, 87-95.
K.W. Bedford and J.A. Liggett, "Convective Transport Finite Element Analog",
Jour. of the Engr. Mech. Div. , Vol . 101, No. EM6, ASCE, December, 1975,
803-818.
D.L. Young, J.A. Liggett, and R.H. Gallagher, "Steady Stratified Circulation
in a Cavity", Jour. of the Engr. Mech. Div. , ASCE, Vol. 102, No. EMl,
February, 1976, 1-17.
. •
D.L. Young, J.A. Liggett, and R.H. Gallagher, "Unsteady Stratified Circulation
in a Cavity", Jour, of the Engr. Mech. Div. , ASCE, Vol . 102, No. EM6,
December, 1976, 1009-1023.
F.D.L. Young and J.A. Liggett,"Transient Finite Element Shallow Lake Circula-
tion", Jour. of the Hyd. Div. , ASCE, Vol. 103, No. HY2, February, 1977,
109-121.
•
J.A. Liggett, "Location of Free Surface in Porous Media" , Jour. of the Hyd.
Div., ASCE, Vol . 103, No. HY4, April, 1977, 353-365.
P.L-F. Liu and J.A. Liggett, "Boundary Integral Solutions to Groundwater
Problems", Proceedings, International Conference of Applied Numerical
Modelling, Southhampton, U.K. , July, 1977, 559-569.
J.A. Liggett and P.L-F. Liu, "Unsteady Free Surface Flow through a Zoned Dam
Using Boundary Integration" , Symposium on Applications of Computer Methods in
Engineering, Univ. of Southern California at Los Angeles, August, 1977.
R.H. Gallagher, J.A. Liggett, and D.L. Young, "Environmental Flow Analysis for
Stratified Conditions" , Chapter 13 of Finite Elements in Fluid Mechanics,
Vol . 3, John Wiley & Sons, 1978, 255-268.
P.L-F. Liu and J.A. Liggett, "An Efficient Numerical Method of Two Dimensional
Steady Groundwater Problems" , Water Resources Research, Vol . 14, No. 3, June,
1978, 385-390.
J.A. Liggett, R.H. Gallagher, J.R. Salmon, and G.E. Blandford, "A Graphical
Computation System for Three-Dimensional Lake Circulation and Contaminant
Dispersion", Proceedings, 26th Annual Hydraulic Division Specialty Conference,
ASCE, Univ. of Maryland, August, 1978, 529-540; also in Modelling and Simula-
tion in Practice/2 (edited by M.J. O'Carroll , et al .), Emjoc Press,
Northallerton, England, 1980, 193-206.
P.L-F. Liu and J.A. Liggett, "Boundary Solutions to Two Problems in Porous
Media", Jour. Hyd. Div., ASCE, Vol . 105, No. HY3, March, 1979, 171-183.
J.A. Liggett and P.L-F. Liu, "Unsteady Interzonal Flow in Porous Media", Water
Resources Research, Vol . 15, No. 2, April , 1979, 240-246.
J.A. Liggett and P.L-F. Liu, "Unsteady Flow in Confined Aquifers - A Compari-
son of Two Boundary Integral Methods", Water Resources Research, Vol . 15, No.
4, August, 1979, 861-866.
G.P. Lennon, P.L-F. Liu, and J.A. Liggett, "Boundary Integral Equation Solu-
tion to Axisymmetric Potential Flows, 1, Basic Formulation", Water Resources
Research, Vol . 15, No. 5, October, 1979, 1102-1106.
G.P. Lennon, P.L-F. Liu, and J.A. Liggett, "Boundary Integral Equation
Solution to Axisymmetric Potential Flows, 2, Recharge and Well Problems in
Porous Media" , Water Resources Research, Vol . 15, No. 5, October, 1979,
1107-1115.
. : •
G.E. Blandford, A.R. Inaraffea, and J.A. Liaaett, "Mixed-Mode Stress Intensity
Factor Calculations Using the Boundary Element Methods" , Proceedings, ASCE
Engineering Mechanics Div. Specialty Conf. , Austin, Texas, September, 1979, 797-800.
O.E. Lafe, J.S. Montes, A.H-D. Cheng, J.A. Liggett and P.L-F. Liu, "Singularities
in Potential Flow Through Porous Media" , Jour. of the Hyd. Div. , ASCE, Vol . 106,
No. HY6, June, 1980, 977-997.
G.P. Lennon, P.L-F. Liu, and J.A. Liggett, "A Boundary Integration Method Applied
to Three-Dimensional Darcy's Flow", Proceedings of the Second Int. Symposium
on Innovative Numerical Analysis for the Engineering Sciences, University Press
of Virginia, 1980, 47-56.
•
G.P. Lennon, P.L-F. Liu, and J.A. Liggett, "Boundary Integral Solutions to Three-
Dimensional Unconfined Darcy's Flow", Water Resources Research, Vol . 16, No. 4,
August, 1980, 651-658.
P.L-F. Liu and J.A. Liggett, "Numerical Stability and Accuracy of Implicit In-
tegration of Free Surface Groundwater Equations", Water Resources Research, Vol .
16, No. 5, October, 1980, 897-900.
J.R. Salmon, J.A. Liggett, and R.H. Gallagher, "Dispersion Analysis in Homogen-
eous Lakes" , Int. Jour. for Num. Meth.. . in Engr. , Vol . 15, November, 1980,
1627-1642.
J.R. Salmon, P.L-F. Liu, and J.A. Liggett, "An Integral Equation Method for
Linear Water Waves" , Jour. of the Hyd. Div. , ASCE, Vol . 106, No. HY12, December,
1980, 1995-2010.
G.E. Blandford, A.R. Ingraffea, and J.A. Liggett, "Two-Dimensional Stress Inten-
sity Factor Computations Using the Boundary Element Method", Int. Jour. for Num.
Meth. in Engr. , Vol . 17, March, 1981 , 387-404.
J.A. Liggett, and J.R. Salmon, "Cubic Spline Boundary Elements" , Int. Jour. for
Num. Methods in Engr. , Vol . 17, April , 1981 , 543-556.
J.A. Liggett, "The Boundary Element Method" , Chapter 8 of Engineering Applica-
tions of Computational Hydraulics: Homage to A. Preissmann, edited by M.B.
Abbott and J.A. Cunge, Pitman, London, 1982.
A.R. Ingraffea, G.E. Blandford and J.A. Liggett, "Automatic Two-Dimensional
Quasi-Static and Fatigue Crack Propagation Using the Boundary Element Method",
14th National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics, ASTM, Los Angeles, California ,
30 June to 2 July, 1981 .
A.H-D. Cheng, P.L-F. Liu, and J.A. Liggett, "Boundary Calculations of Sluice
and Spillway Flows" , Jour. of the Hyd. Div. , ASCE, Vol . 107, No. HY10, October,
1981 , 1163-1178.
P.L-F. Liu and J.A. Liggett, "Applications of Boundary Element Methods to Prob-
lems of Water Waves", Chapter 3 of Developments in Boundary Element Methods - 2,
edited by P.K. Banerjee and R.P. Shaw, Elsevier' s Applied Science Publishers Ltd. ,
London, 1982, 37-67.
•
•
•
P.L-F. Liu, and A.H-D. Cheng, J.A. Liggett, and J.H. Lee, "Boundary Integral
Equation Solutions to Moving Interface Between Two Fluids in Porous Media" ,
Water Resources Research, Vol . 17, No. 5, October, 1981 , 1445-1452.
O.E. Lafe, J.A. Liggett, and P.L-F. Liu, "BIEM Solutions to Combinations of
Leaky, Layered, Confined, Unconfined, Nonisotropic Aquifers", Water Resources
Research, Vol . 17, No. 5, October, 1981 , 1431-1444.
G.P. Lennon, P.L-F. Liu, and J.A. Liggett, "Boundary Integral Solutions to
Water Wave Problems", Jour. of the Hyd. Div. , ASCE, Vol . 108, No. HY8, August,
1982, 921-931 .
J.A. Liggett, "Singular Cubature over Triangles", Int. Jour. for Num. Methods
in Engr. , Vol . 18, September, 1982, 1375-1334.
J.A. Liggett, "Hydrodynamic Calculations using Boundary Elements", Finite
Element Flow Analysis, edited by T. Kawai , University of Tokyo Press, 1982,
889-896.
L-Y. Wei and J.A. Liggett, "Zoned Boundary Elements - An Economical Calculation",
Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Finite Element Methods, Science Press, Beijing China,
1982, 816-820.
A.H-D. Cheng and J.A. Liggett, "Boundary Integral Equation Method for Linear
Porous-Elasticity with Applications to Soil Consolidation" , Int. Jour. for Num.
Methods in Engr. , Vol . 19, 1983.
A.H-D. Cheng and J.A. Liggett, "Boundary Integral Equation Method for Linear
Porous-Elasticity with Applications to Fracture Propagation", Int. Jour. for
Num. Methods in Engr. , Vol . 19, 1983.
P.J. Dillon and J.A. Liggett, "An Ephemeral Stream-Aquifer Interaction Model",
Water Resources Research, Vol . 19, 1933.
P.L-F. Liu and J.A. Liggett, "Boundary Element Formulations and Solutions for
some Nonlinear Water Wave Problems" , to be published as a chapter in Develop-
ments in Boundary Element Methods - 3, edited by P.K. Banerjee and S. Mukerjee.
J.A. Liggett and P.L-F. Liu, "Applications of Boundary Element Methods to Fluid
Mechanics", to be published as a chapter in Progress in Boundary Elements, edited
by C. Brebbia.
PERCPLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CONSULTANTS
310 W. STATE STREET
ITHACA NEW YORK
607.272•2201 14850
RESUME
Thomas Niederkorn
Office: Home:
PLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CONSULTANTS Sevanna Park D-4
310 West State Street Ithaca, New York 14850
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 272-2201 (607) 257-3175
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY AND RELATED PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
1973 to Owner, Planning/Environmental Research Consultants.
present Studies for regions, counties, cities, towns, villages and private
enterprise, involving research, data gathering, analysis, plan de-
velopment, implementation, site planning, environmental assessment,
citizen involvement, and promotion. Work covers the full range of
community activities including housing, recreation and open space,
transportation, economic base, schools, population analysis, util-
ities, community services, site design, aesthetic evaluation,
capital budgeting, and land use controls. Special projects include
coastal and riverbank management studies, large scale planned de-
velopment, economic and environmental impact studies and land use
controls for environmentally sensitive areas.
1966 to President, Egner & Niederkorn Associates, Inc.
1977 Conducted the planning and site design studies which were subse-
quently taken over by Planning/Environmental Research Consultants
(see above).
1961-66 Director of Planning for the City of Ithaca and the Greater Ithaca
Regional Planning Board.
Administrative head of the Planning Department. Supervision of
• technical staff and all planning activity in the Ithaca area in-
cluding General Plan studies, population projections, housing
programs, urban renewal applications, zoning and subdivision review,
traffic and utility studies, recreation and open space analysis,
neighborhood planning studies, and capital budgeting and improvements
•
•
programming. For the Greater Ithaca Regional Planning Board, super-
vision of comprehensive "701" planning programs, arterial highway
relocation studies, long-range school site selection studies, eco-
nomic base studies and site acquisition, development and use .studies
for recreation areas under state and Federal assistance programs.
1962-64 Lecturer for three semesters in City and Regional Planning at Cornell
University involving academic studies of Ithaca, Elmira-Chemung
County and Syracuse-Onondaga. County. •
1959-60 'Worked in the City of Elmira as resident planner for the Princeton
consulting firm of Herbert H. Smith Associates. Overall supervision
for the preparation of a General Plan under Section 701 of the Fed-
eral Housing Act for the City of Elmira including a detailed re-
development and phasing plan for the Central Business District.
1958-59 Worked in the Ithaca Urban Area as resident planner for Herbert H.
Smith Associates. Complete responsibility for a General Plan for
the Ithaca Urban Area under Section 701 of the Federal Housing Act.
1957-58 Planning consultant. Full range of responsibility for preparation
of General Plans for various communities in the Philadelphia
Metropolitan Area.
COLLEGE EDUCATION
Miami University,..Oxford; Ohio 1948-52
Bachelor of Architecture and. Bachelor of Arts Degrees
University of California, Berkeley 1952-54
Master of City Planning Degree . •
-
Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 1956-57
Master. of Civic Design Degree •
MILITARY SERVICE
United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1955-56. Served with the Corps of
. Engineers Far East Mapping Division, Tokyo.
COMMUNITY ACTIVITY •
Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Center for the Arts at Ithaca, Inc.,
a nonprofit corporation established to promote and develop a major cultural
center for the Ithaca and Finger Lakes Region. Initiated development of a
Tompkins County Arts Council and presently on its board.
Former member of the Tompkins County Area Beautification Council.
Former member of the Ithaca Commons Advisory Board. Responsible to Mayor and
City Council for administration and operation of the Ithaca Commons. •
2
Former member of the Ithaca Area Public Transit Committee.
Former member of the Citizens Committee to save Cayuga Lake, 1968-1974.
STATE ACTIVITY
Former member of the Judicial Nominating Committee, Third Judicial Department,
State of New York, 1975-1979.
MEMBERSHIP
American Institute of Certified Planners.
PROJECTS, REPORTS AND PUBLICATIONS
See attached partial project list.
REFERENCES
Provided on request.
3
7 - FERD
PLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CONSULTANTS
310 W. STATE STREET
ITHACA NEW YORK
607.272• 2201 14850
PARTIAL PROJECT LIST
General Planning and Management Location
Community Facilities Study: Appalachian Region* New York State Appalachia Region
(14 Southern Tier Counties)
Comprehensive Planning Studies Cortland County, New York
Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances Town of Elmira, New. York
Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances Town and Village of Cobleskill,
New York
Comprehensive Plan: Broome & Tioga Counties* Southern Tier - New York State
Comprehensive Plan: Town and Village of Onondaga County, New York
Skaneateles
Comprehensive Plan and Associated Studies: Wayne County, New York
Wayne County
Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances Town and Village of Greene, New York
Comprehensive Plan and. Ordinances Town of Oswegatchie, Village of
Heuvelton, New York
Coastal Zone Management Study* Jefferson County, New York
Comprehensive Plan Town of Mendon, New York
Comprehensive Plan and Model Ordinances Wayne County, New York
Coastal Zone Management Plan Wayne County, New York
Comprehensive Plan Town of Walworth, New York
Coastal Zone Management Plan Town of Greece, New York
Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance Update Town of Lansing, New York
Business Area Planning
Business Area Plan: Village of Skaneateles* Skaneateles, New York
Business Area Plan: Village of Cobleskill Cobleskill, New York
Business Area Plan: Village of Sackets Harbor Sackets Harbor, New York
Business Area Plan: Village of Lyons* Lyons, New York
Recreation and Open Space
Open Space Inventory and Analysis Cortland County, New York
Recreation and Open Space Plan Jefferson County, New York
Seasonal Residents and Visitors Jefferson County, New York
Waterfront Development Plan Sackets Harbor, New York
Master Plan for Development of Open Space Ithaca, New York
and Recreation Facilities*
Susquehanna River Recreation Study Broome & Tioga Counties, New York
Susquehanna Riverbanks Plan Broome & Tioga Counties, New York
Standards for Recreation Development Wayne County, New York
Southern Tier Central Region Functional
Planning Report (Recreation and Open Space)* Steuben, Schuyler and Chemung Counties,
New York
Lower Genesee River Gorge Plan Rochester, New York
Urban Cultural Park - Feasibility Study Broome County, New York
Susquehanna Riverbanks Trail Design Broome County, New York
•
Traffic and Transportation Location
Route 13 Economic Impact Study Tompkins County
Interchange Impact Study - New York State Genesee County, New York
Thruway*
Interchange Impact on Land Use Town of Dickinson, New York
Route 5 Relocation Study Town of Camillus, New York
Environmental
Environmental Impact Analysis for Proposed Town of Seneca Falls, Seneca County
Water Supply District Expansion: Com-
munity Development Grant*
Environmental Impact Analysis: Circle City of Ithaca, Tompkins County
Greenway Park
Model Zoning Ordinance Based on Environ- Monroe County, New York
mental Concerns
Evaluation of Environmental Impact Analysis Town of Ellery, New York
for Proposed Sanitary Landfill
Environmental Impact Statement, Center City of Ithaca, Tompkins County
Ithaca Business and Housing Complex
Housing -
Housing - The People's View* Cortland County, New York
Housing Needs and Market Analysis* Wayne County, New York
Multiple Housing, Mobile Homes Wayne County, New York
An Examination of Problems Related Ithaca, New York
to Affordable Housing
Planning Implementation
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Revision Towns of Arcadia, Marion, Rose and
Sodus, Villages of Lyons and Wolcott,
New York
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Revision Town of Schoharie, New York
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Town and Village of Skaneateles,
Subdivision Regulations Revision* New York
Capital Improvements Program* Town and Village of Skaneateles,
New York
Comprehensive Zoning, Subdivision and Mobile Town of Oswegatchie, Village of
Home Regulations Heuveltion, New York
Capital Improvements Program. Village of Cobleskill, New York
Fiscal Analysis and Capital Wayne County, New York
Improvement Programming.Procedure
Capital Improvements Program* Town and Village of Groton, New York
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Revision City of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin
Facilities Planning
Study of Reuse Potential: Homer Folks State Oneonta, New York
Hospital*
Public Buildings: A Plan to Meet County Wayne County, New York
Space Needs*
DeWitt Community Center Feasibility Study* Ithaca, New York
2
Industry and Economic Development Location
Cornell University Industry - Research Ithaca, New York
Park: Development Plan and Quality
Review Standards
Urban Cultural Park - Development and Broome County, New York
Economic Feasibility
Identification and Evaluation of Industrial Wayne County, New York
Sites
Land Evaluation Study, Ithaca College Ithaca, New York
Ithaca-Cortland Economic Growth Center Tompkins and Cortland Counties,
New York
Real Estate Economic Yield Analysis Grailville Center, Loveland, Ohio
(highest and best use of land) .
Economic and Social Impact of the National Ithaca, New York
Junior Olympics on an Appalachian Community
Miscellaneous
Planned Community of Greenbirer (PUD) Wayne County, New York
Identification and Evaluation of Potential Wayne County, New York
Industrial Sites
Community Public Relations Program: Sign Wayne County, New York
Control (audiovisual)
Community Public Relations Program: Planning Wayne County, New York
and Zoning in Government (audiovisual)
Community Public Relations Program: Coastal Wayne County, New York
Zone Management (audiovisual)
Community Public Relations Program: Environ- Wayne County, New York
mental Impact Procedures in New York
State (audiovisual)
Planning Advisory Services: Town of Camillus, Onondaga County
Town of Lansing, Tompkins County
Town of Mendon, Monroe County
Cornell University Research Park Develop- Ithaca, New York
ment Plan and Quality Review Standards
Cornell University Performing Arts Site Ithaca, New York
Location Study
Special Studies:* Camillus, New York
West Genesee Street
Route 5 Bypass
Mobile Home Ordinance
West Hill Development Plan
•
APRIL, 1983
* Projects initiated while Mr. Niederkorn was President of Egner and Niederkorn
Associates, Inc.
3
PEROPLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CONSULTANTS
310 W. STATE STREET
ITHACA NEW YORK
607.272•2201 14850
RESUME
Leonard Mankowski
Office: Home:
DEPARTMENT OF DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Martha Van Rennsselaer 58 Woodcrest Avenue
Cornell University Ithaca, New York 14850
Ithaca, New York 14853
(607) 256-2144 (607) 272-8300
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
1980 to Assistant Professor, Department of Design and Environmental Analysis,
present Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
1972 to Owner, Total Design Confederation, Inc., Baltimore, Maryland.
present
Experience in architecture, planning, urban design, construction
management, landscape architecture, interior design, graphics and
research. T.D.C. has been involved in nearly 100 separate projects
whose construction costs have totaled $133 million dollars. (See
brochure.)
1970-71 Lecturer, Architectural Faculty, Universtiy of Newcastle, New
South Wales, Australia.
EDUCATION AND HONORS
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 1962
Bachelor of Architecture Degree
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 1970
Master of Architecture Degree
Richard King Mellon Scholarship - Carnegie Institute of Technology
AIA Outstanding Student Award-University of Cincinnati 1962
Kellogg Architectural Scholarship-Cornell University 1967-68
Eidlitz Traveling Fellowship-Cornell University 1968
v.
Speaker at Tennessee Housing Educators Conference 1982
Invited speaker, National Extension Housing Conference 1984
Invited panelist, AIA Housing Committee Plan Review Panel, National Home
Builders Conference 1984
.PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL REGISTRATION
National Council of Architects Registration #14425
Pennsylvania 4725
Colorado C-290
Maryland 2790-R
New York 15139
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND 'MEMBERSHIPS
Construction Specifications• Institute
Institute for Urban Design
International Solar Energy Society, American Section
(Education Chairman 1981)
American Institute of Architects
(AIA Housing Committee 1982-83)
(Interior Design Committee Corresponding Member 1982)
New York State AIA
South Central New York AIA
(Director 1981)
(President Elect 1982)
(President 1983)
Associate Member, National Association of Home Builders
PARTIAL LIST OF PROJECTS
Peabody Municipal Complex Master Plan, Peabody, Mass.
*Holiday Inn Hotel, Ocean City, MD.
*Rose Inn Renovation and Master Plan, Tompkins Co., N.Y.
*Brunner Commercial Center, Burgettstown, PA.
*Colorado Conference Center Mini Museum, Colorado Springs, Col.
*Laurel Bank - Motel - Commercial Complex, Master Plan, Laurel, MD.
*Bernmack Recreational Complex
Master Plan and Phase I Development, Washington Co., PA.
•
*Baltimore County Watersedge Park Shelter Renovation, Maryland
*Baltimore County Double Rock Park Shelter Renovation, Maryland
• 2
I �
*Baltimore County Belmar Park Shelter Renovation, Maryland
*Baltimore County Bear Creek Prototype Park Shelter, Maryland
*New Bern Administration Office for 200 Boat Marina, New Bern, N.C.
*Harford County Heavenly Waters Park Master Plan 300 Acres, Harford Co., MD.
*Lighthouse Sound 400 Boat Marina 75 Acres, Ocean City, MD.
*Harford County Racquet Club, Bel Air, MD.
*Lighthouse Sound County Club Master Plan with 27 Hole Golf Course 850 acres,
Ocean City, MD.
*The Retreat - Swimming/Squash Complex, Rocks, MD.
*Four Seasons Hotel - Swim/Golf/Commercial complex, Ocean City, MD.
--*Harford County Heavenly Waters Nature Trail System for the Handicapped and
Blind, Harford Co., MD.
*Wisconsin Arabian Horse Training Facilities, Wisconsin
*Fascade Restoration Azola Bldg., Baltimore, MD.
*Interior Renovation Burgettstown VFW, Burgettstown, PA.
*Churchville Recreation Center Landscape Master Plan, Bel Air, MD.
*Harford County Equestrian Center Site Improvements, Bel Air, MD.
*Baltimore City-Oliver Tot-Lot, Baltimore, MD.
*Cooperstown Industrial Park Master Plan, Allegheny Co., PA.
*Woods Run Industrial Park Master Plan, Woods Run, PA.
*Federal Hill Historic Preservation, Baltimore, Maryland
*Elder Residence Historic Preservation, Bolton Hill, Maryland
*Upton Housing Rehabilitation, Baltimore, Maryland
REFERENCES _
Provided on request.
*Indicates Architect of Record.
3
+� , S ECOLOGY ' ! °F T O M P K I N S COUNTY
• 301 South G: rAert1, Ithac: New York 14850 (607) 272-3040
.o84 ' '
X0'4 `." ,S�� ',;;� •vember 1 , 1984
Dear Common Council membe . t.a�
On behalf of Ecology Action of Tompkins County, I wish
to express our reservations to you on the Stewart Park Master Plan
Report which was released September 19th. On page two of the
Introduction, the report states: " To the extent the plan is adopted
by local government, it is a significant document and serious
deviation from any of its principles, objectives and concepts
could have a detrimental impact on the whole." We are alarmed by
the degree of rigidity implied by this statement. Further, we
heartily disagree that serious deviation from a particular proposal
would be a detriment to the plan as a whole. As previously stated
in a letter to Ivir. Niederkorn, Ecology Action is opposed to the
extension of the City Golf Course into the wetland area known as
the Cornell Biological Field Station.
For Common Council to approve the Stewart Park Master
Plan 'in concept' could lead to great difficulty later in modifying
any of the major proposals. Ecology Action urges you to not take
any action on the Master Plan report until the critical question
of golf course expansion into the wetland is resolved.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
��--7u0
Dorothy C . Pomponio , member of
Ecology Action of Tompkins County
CITIZENS TO SAVE STEWART PARK
Analysis of Data from Trowbridge and Trowbridge Survey of Stewart Park
Data from the Trowbridge Stewart Park survey show:
1 . The people of Ithaca use Stewart Park.
2. They are happy with it as it is.
3. The only change requested by a majority is better restrooms.
Data from the survey do not support many of the interpretations made by
Trowbridge in his "Survey Summary." We find his presentation and inter-
pretation of the data confusing and misleading. In cases where the number
of persons responding is small , percentage figures give misleading weight.
For greater clarity we have substituted the actual number of persons
involved for the percentage figures used by Trowbridge. We think this
alternate presentation permits a more accurate interpretation.
Contents: Condensation of Results of Survey.
Tabulation of Data, Using Actual Numbers of People
or Items Instead of Percentages.
Citizens to Save Stewart Park do not think the park should be redesigned.
We think it is a beautiful place as it is. We and the 7,000 people who
have signed our petition urge that existing buildings, roads, landscaping
and other facilities in the park be properly maintained, preserved and
restored.
2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, New York. October 29, 1986
Condensation of Results of Trowbridge Survey of Stewart Park
In general , items listed below are the first, second, third, or fourth highest
categories.
1 . Do The People of Ithaca Use Stewart Park?
Yes, Trowbridge data show 88.8% use it.
2. Which User Groups Use It Most? (Survey Questions 5 and 6)
Heads of Household 2,243 visits
12 and under 1 ,294
31-40 1 ,208
21-30 1 ,193
(Trowbridge's data contradict his claim that "12 and under" is largest user
group. )
3. Are People of Ithaca Satisfied with the Park and its Facilities? (Q-13)
Overwhelmingly, yes.
Most people graded most park aspects and facilities "Excellent" or "Above
Average". Only "Restrooms" were judged "Below Average" or "Unsatisfactory".
In his "Survey Summary" Trowbridge has manipulated this data by averaging
"C" with "D&F". We have called a number of respondents in this survey and
they have all told us emphatically their grade of "C" was passing, or
satisfactory, and should not be averaged with failing grades "D&F".
4. What Do People Do Most at the Park? (Q-10)
Number of times activity performed by household members:
Lake viewing 1 ,686 Feeding the ducks 778
Walking or jogging 1 ,317 Using children's play equipment 707
Picnicking 1 ,001 Carousal rides 352
5. What Do People Like Best About the Park? (Q-8)
Number of Respondents:
Lake location 67
Natural surroundings 13
6. What Do People Like Least About the Park? (Q-9)
Loud road groups 30
No swimming 20
Traffic speeds 11 (Why not put in speed bumps tomorrow?)
Note: We think two other items listed, "highway location - 9" and
"difficult access - 5", are negative comments on the recent removal
of the sycamore grove (which formerly screened Route 13) to put in
the new access road and the Youth Bureau Building. A good example
of the bad effect redesigning and relandscaping can have.
Condensation of Results - 2
7. What Facilities at the Park Do People
"Want More, Less or About the Same"? (Q-11 )
Most people picked "Same" for all but two of the facilities listed. They
like the Park the way it is. They do want more restrooms and more lakes de
picnic tables.
8. Are There Activities and Facilities Not
Now at Park that People Would Like There? (Q-12)
NO 92 YES 83
Swimming 25 Boat rental 12 Restaurant Concession 8
Program Events 20 Zoo 9 Other 28
Considering the small number of people giving each category an answer, we
wonder why Trowbridge devoted 4 of the 12 items in his "Summary of Results"
to the responses to this question (Items 5, 6, 7 & 8). The data contradict
his statements that there is a "strong desire for additional programming" and
"Three of the five most frequent responses indicate water or waterfront access. "
9. Which Items Got the Best and the Worst Ratings? (Q-11 & 13)
Visual attractiveness of the park and its entrance got best ratings.
Restrooms got worst ratings.
10. Are There Other Improvements People Want? (Q-15)
Who knows? Trowbridge has lumped together incompatible categories and used
percentages so confusingly, it is difficult to interpret the data.
Visual appearance/maintenance 50
Roadways, parking/traffic speeds 24
Swimming 17
Control drinking/noise 16
Landscaping/screen parking 16
"Visual appearance/maintenance" lumps together items such as "restrooms"
which we know consistently scored poorly elsewhere, and "visual
appearance" which we know consistently scored highly elsewhere in
the survey.
Similarly, we know that some people expressed concern about speeding
elsewhere in the survey, but not about roadways and parking. To lump
them together gives a false weight to all three.
Trowbridge asserts that 13.9% (his "Summary of Results" incorrectly says
15.6%") voted for "increasing and improving the landscaping." What he
does not make clear is that this 13.9% represents only 16 people --
scarcely a strong mandate to redesign the landscaping at Stewart Park,
especially when viewed against the high scores given by large numbers
of people to the visual appearance of the park.
Tabulation of Data from Trowbridge and Trowbridge Survey of Stewart Park.
1-5. Who Are Respondents - Heads of households.
Number of Respondents - Trowbridge says 197. But for most of
survey N is 175 or less (22 respondents were dropped from Format A
because they had not visited park this year).
3. Total Number of Members in Total Households - >540 ("more than")
4. Number of Household Members by Age Grouping
12 and under 78
13-20 83
21-30 211
31-40 85
41-60 51
61 and over 36
5. Number of Times Heads of
Households Visited Park This Year - 2,243.
6. Number of Times Respondents Thought
Household Members Visited Park This Year
12 and under 1 ,294
13-20 549
21-30 1 ,193
31-40 1 ,208
41-60 663
61 and over 185
7. How Respondents Visited Park
Alone 14
Friends 94
Family 53
Organization group 8 N = 169
8. What Respondents Liked Best About Park
Lake location - view 67
Natural surrounds 13
Quiet atmosphere 11
Good picnicking 11
Childs play area 10
Open space 10
Lakeside seating 8
Willow trees 7
Accessibility 7
Other 27 N = 171
. Tabulation of Data - 2
9. What Respondents Liked Least About Park
Loud road groups 30
No swimming 20
Traffic speeds 11
Dirty lake - lagoon 11
Highway location 9
Crowds 7
Lack of maintenance 5
Difficult access* 5
No zoo 2
Other 53 N = 153
*We think respondents are referring to the new access road built as part of the
Niederkorn plan.
10. Number of Times Respondents Thought
Any Household Members Participated
in Activities Below at Stewart Park
Number of People Overall Times
1 ) Walking or jogging 128 1 ,317
2) Picnicking in pavilion 77 264
3) Picnicking in uncovered areas 122 737
4) Used children's play equipment 68 707
5) Lake viewing 164 1 ,686
6) Carousal rides 45 352
7) Fishing 10 167
8) Feed the ducks 99 778
9) Play softball , football , frisbee 86 347
10) Play tennis 15 66
11 ) Attend concert 48 70
12) Attend organization group event 86 157
13) Bicycling 40 242
14) Photography 46 138
11 . Do Respondents Think There Should
Be More, Less or About the Same Amount
of Following Facilities at Stewart Park
Actual Number
D.K+ Giving
More Same Less N.A. An Answer
1 ) Lakeside benches 84 88 3 172
2) Other benches 72 86 1 16 159
3) Lakeside picnic tables _ 75 4 10 165
4) Uncovered picnic tables 61 d5,_ 19 156
5) Covered picnic tables 33 96 8 38 137
6) Children's play equipment 35 85 3 51 123
7) Duck feeding area 35 112 5 22 152
8) Fishing access 28 67 8 74 98
9) Open play areas, softball ,
football , soccer, frisbee 52 91 9 23 152
10) Tennis courts 25 80 10 30 115
11 ) Bicycle path 67 69 1 38 137
12) Group event facilities 37 97 4 37 138
13) Restrooms 102* 51 1 21 157
*Note that the only changes wanted by a majority are more restrooms. We suspect
they want "more" restrooms because they consider the present ones unusable.
Tabulation of Data - 3
12. Are There Activities or Facilities Not Now
At Park Respondent Would Like to See There?
NO 92
YES 83 N = 175
Swimming 25
Boat rental 12
Zoo 9
Program events 20
Restaurant concession 8
Other 28
13. Respondent Grading of Aspects of Stewart Park
We think that Trowbridge in his "Survey Summary" has manipulated this data
against the intent of the respondents and against the obvious meaning
of the question itself. We have called a number of the respondents in
this survey and they all , unanimously and emphatically, have told
us that a grade of "C" means a passing grade; many called it a satisfactory
grade. They said it was against the meaning of their grading to
average "C" with failing marks of "D" and "F" as Trowbridge has done.
Question 13. "I 'm going to ask you about several aspects of Stewart Park,
and I would like you to give each aspect a grade, like school grades, where
A = Excellent, B = Above Average, C = Average, D = Below Average, and F =
Unsatisfactory. "
Actual Number
A&B C D&F D.K. Giving a Mark
1 ) Physical condition lake shoreline 63 60 48 4 171
2) Condition picnic area 115 45 3 12 163
3) Visual attractiveness park entrance 95 58 21 1 174
4) Visual attractiveness park buildings 66 81 21 7 168
5) Availability of picnic areas 122 39 5 9 166
6) Condition duck pond 57 43 26 49 126
7) Condition lagoon area 54 46 23 52 123
8) Visual attractiveness parking areas 87 66 17 5 172
9) Condition restrooms 21 49 57* 48 127
10) Overall visual attractiveness park 143 26 5 1 174
11 ) Enforcement park regulations 59 33 23 115
*Note: Only one item in above list, "restrooms," has most grades in "D" and "F".
14. Are There Members of Respondents
Household Physically Handicapped
YES 9
NO 166 N = 175
Rating of Handicap Accessibility within Stewart Park
A - 3, B - 0, C - 2, D - 4, F - 0 N = 9
Tabulation of Data - 4
15. Are There Any Other Specific Improvements
You Would Like to See in Stewart Park
NO 63
YES 110 N = 173
Maintenance/appearance 50
Roadway, parking, traffic speed 24
Swimming 17
Control drinking, noise 16
Landscaping/screen parking 16
Pedestrian handicap access 9
We think it is inappropriate and that it distorts the data to lump
maintenance/appearance together as one category. Maintenance has to do
with things like "restrooms" which we know (from Questions 11 and 13)
almost everyone wants cleaned up and improved. Appearance has to do with
attractiveness of the park (which we know from Items 3, 4, 8 and 10 in
Question 13 are rated very highly by the respondents). To lump these
categories together is to put together something very desirable with
something very undesirable.
We think it inappropriate to lump together "roadway, parking, traffic
speed. " They are separate categories. Lumping them together gives
them a misleadingly higher number than they would have separately.
•
ed.,6( 1,0 e7<z,
40-3M 14,„
,t
1 ��q'°�RATEO`00%
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
October 29, 1986
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Common Council
FROM: Board of Planning and Development
RE: STEWART PARK IMPROVEMENTS ((((((___��_
DATE: October 29, 1986
At its October meeting, this Board approved, by 5-0-0 vote, recommenda-
tions for action on the issues currently surrounding the proposed
improvements. These recommendations result from consideration of a
request by Citizens to Save Stewart Park, that this Board support that
group's efforts to have Common Council discard the Master Plan, and to
halt the detailed design work currently in process.
The Board's recommendations are:
1. That the design work presently under way continue as programmed.
2. That in the course of investigating alternatives, the design
consultant pay special attention to enhancing recreational
opportunities for all ages, tots through senior citizens.
3. That the Master Plan be held in abeyance pending completion
of the design work and subsequent decision about implementa-
tion.
4. That guidelines on maintenance of the park should be estab-
lished, based where applicable on the design development that
may be finally approved.
5. That the Mayor be requested to reactivate the full Stewart Park
Advisory Group, filling any vacancies.
JCM:jv
An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"
Citizens to Save Stewart Park 2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, N. Y.
Statement Before Common Council , November 5, 1986
Please Don't Change Stewart Park
I am Doria Higgins of 2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, speaking for Citizens to Save
Stewart Park.
First I would like to say that Professor Darryl Bem of Cornell University who
has most generously acted as consultant for us in examining the data of the
Trowbridge Opinion Survey of Stewart Park will speak to you on that matter later
this evening. Dr. Bem is known both nationally and internationally for his work
in the behavioral sciences, more particularly in the area of attitudes and atti-
tude change and has testified frequently in Washington as well as elsewhere on
these matters.
On your desks are two items: one is a Compilation of Letters, Suggestions,
Opinions and Articles by Citizens to Save Stewart Park and Others, and the
second item is an analysis of the results of the Trowbridge survey coupled with
a tabulation of that data, using actual numbers of people rather than the
percentage figures used by Trowbridge -- an alternate presentation which we
think permits a more accurate interpretation of the results.
This data clearly show that the people of Ithaca like Stewart Park the way it
is. They want some maintenance items renewed but there is no mandate whatsoever
in the Trowbridge data for redesigning or relandscapaing Stewart Park or any
part of /the park.
ickd
So the results of this survey lied us back to the question we have asked this
Council a number of times. Why is Stewart Park being redesigned? Who in the
community is being served by this project?
While we are encouraged by the Hoffman resolution and by the modifications of it
by Planning and Development Committee which are to be discussed tonight, we are
still concerned that Common Council chooses to pursue plans to change Stewart Park
whether they be by Mr. Niederkorn or by Mr. Trowbridge.
Fe curvty.f- 0 fi
Historically the first reference we can find to changing,�Stewart Park is a
"Capital Improvement Program Project Request" submitted by "BPW & P&D" titled
"Stewart Park Improvement Plan" and received by you May 16, 1983. It reads:
"Public Works has determined that extensive but unspecified improvements are
needed." So you can see that from the beginning the project has been confusing.
If the improvements are unspecified, how does anyone know they' ll be extensive?
This early request also says that the Stewart Park Improvements would be "a
component of the proposed Inlet Valley Park and Recreation Master Plan." We
find this information disturbing, particularly when viewed with reference to the
Master Plan brochure map where there is a large white area on the golf course
mysteriously labeled "future shore development." We call this matter to your
attention to urge you to give it your most careful scrutiny when it comes before
you. Those of you who have lived all your lives in ithaca and think of the city
surround as rural may not realize how precious inner city green space becomes as
suburbia spreads -- as it is doing in cities the world over.
-2-
While we were encouraged by that part of Trowbridge's third public presentation
which dealt with maintenance and restoration, there were other items mentioned
by him, notably changing the roadway and parking system and segmentizing the
elegant simplicity of green lawn with walkways and promenades, which we find
disturbing.
Friends of ours who are handicapped and who find that the present roadways and
parking at Stewart Park give them a freedom of movement they cannot find
elsewhere are also worried about the proposed changes by Trowbridge. These
changes cannot be defended legitimately on the grounds that they increase
handicap accessibility.
So we are left with the question why are you changing the park? By now more
than 7,000 people have signed our petition urging you to revoke plans to
redesign the park and instead to maintain, preserve and restore existing
buildings, roads, landscaping and other facilities in the park. In the Citizens
to Save Stewart Park Compilation before you are an outpouring of concern by the
people of our community -- people in wheelchairs, Cornell professors of
architecture, people who have lived long lives in Ithaca, the young, the old.
Please listen to these people -- read the letters in our compilation.
Let me close with two quotations (these are from the first two statements in our
Compilation) . The first is by John Shaw, Professor of Architecture at Cornell :
"It is difficult to understand the imagined need to make drastic changes in
Stewart Park. Considering the inexhaustible demand for public money, it seems
frivolous to propose unnecessary and insensitive alterations to one of Ithaca's
great resources . . . The proposed development seems to assume that the park is
now inefficient, boring and out-of-date. It is none of these. Contrived charm
dates itself as old Stewart Park will never be dated."
The second quotation is by Arch MacKenzie, Associate Professor of Architecture
at Cornell , and reads, after he has described the qualities that "make Stewart
Park work," "It would be easy to disturb these delicate features by even a few
ill-considered improvements. " (underlining ours)
Please do not let Stewart Park become a political football . Please let it be.
Herewith are 554 more signatures to our Petition, bringing our grand total to
7,205.
m\\irk
C i 9 '4
ji 2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, NY 14850
•
November 1E., 1986
The Honorable John C. GLtenberger
Mayor of The City of Ithaca
City Hall
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Mr. Mayor:
Thank you very much indeed for your invitation to us concerning SPAG.
Certainly there is no question in our minds that we want to put ourselves
at SPAG's service in seeing that the best is done by Stewart Park. However,
in discussing this matter at our last meeting, a number of questions arose
and the consensus was that we should have a clearer idea of the responsi-
bilities involved.
Firstly, what is the charge to SPAG -- what are its functions and its
powers? By whom are its meetings convened and hcw often does it meet and
under what circumstances? What is the relationship of SPAG's executive
committee to its larger body? What are the responsibilities involved with
SPAG membership?
And, finally, what role do you see a representative from CSSP serving on
SPAG, particularly in view. of the fact that SPAG approved the Niederkorn
plan to redesign Stewart Park to which we are opposed. We are also con-
cerned that SPAG is not representative of the community and wonder on what
basis appointments to it are made.
We are all looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Citizens to Save Stewart Park
as agreed at the November 17, 1986 meeting
f By: Doria Higins
2 Hillcrest Drive, Ithaca, NY ! I_ !
P,
S
November 18, 1986
14 a//,
The Honorable John C. Gutenberger ri/),
Mayor of The City of Ithaca ;.r, % F
City Hall
NY 14850
Dear Mr. Mayor:
Citizens to Save Stewart Park feels that the public has been riri-sled
when invited to "participate" at the recent Stewart Park Information Meet-
ings, sponsored by the City of Ithaca and presented by Peter Trowbridge.
Reactions from Trowbridge and staff to questions from the public suggests
the public has really been invited to passively acquiesce with Trowbridge's
presentation rather than to participate. As a case in point: At the
October 8th meeting, Trowbridge presented his interpretatior of the data
from his Opinion Survey of Stewart Park (data which was at that time with-
held from the public and which was not made available until October 24th),
and at the next meeting on October 29th, he used interpretation of that data
as rationale for the designs being discussed but cut off questions from the
audience on the data itself by saying "The survey was discussed at the last
meeting -- tonight we are only discussing designs." Does City Hall and
Trowbridge want the public to participate or not? It sounds as though the
public is expected to attend eight lengthy meetings but will be prevented
from addressing relevant issues at them. We are writing in the hope that
this situation can be improved.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Citizens to Save Stewart Park
as agreed at our November 17, 1986 meeting
by:
Doria Higgins
cc: Trowbridge
Meigs
Common Council
- • 4-** _I H9o1 t
l'./ ate'.. It
-° MIAOW 1
tom-
ORAtEO="
CITY OF ITHACA
1OB EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
OFFICE OF TELEPHONE: 272-1713
MAYOR CODE 607
t
TO: Stewart Park Advisory Group ,
FROM: Mayor John C. Gutenberger ,
.a
DATE: December 2, 1986
RE: Common Council Resolution
I hope to be able to join you tonight after the Boy Scout Recognition
dinner but in case I miss your discussion, I would like to share a few of my
thoughts regarding the Common Council resolution up for reconsideration
at its Wednesday meeting.
The resolution states "that the Stewart Park Master Plan be set aside. . ." .
The resolution further states "the Master Plan may serve as a resource. . .".
The Library of Universal Knowledge defines "set aside " as . . .to omit, to
lay out of the question; to disregard; to abrogate" .
How the Master Plan can serve as a resouce after it has been disregarded,
omitted, etc. makes no sense to me.
I would suggest removing the words "that the Stewart Park Master Plan
be set aside" and insert a positive statement such as:
*Insert A
Common Council reaffirmsthe Design Objectives of the Master Plan:
1 . To accommodate the growing local and regional demand for usable
waterfront parkland.
2. To maintain an effective separation of user activities in different
parts of the complex.
3. To minimize vehicular intrusion and concentrate parking in specific
locations.
An Enna!Oppo'tunity Emplovn,v,i'h an Aff,rnntivr Action pmq,1 o
Stewart Park Advisory Group
December 2, 1986
4. To increase opportunity for access to, and use of, lake, creek and
inlet shoreline.
5. To preserve the habitat and buffer functions of the Fuertes Sanctuary.
6. To modify Newman Golf Course so that limited land is used to best
potential and player challenge is increased.
7. To take full advantage of the social, cultural and economic opportunity
which could come from rehabilitation and increased use of park structures
and facilities.
8. To design and schedule changes so that use can be maintained during
construction.
9. To create distinct but related activity areas by land use design and
landscaping.
* Item #2, listed under "Be It Further Resolved" be reworded, such
as:
a. Trowbridge & Trowbridge are to investigate alternatives to the
spine road system, and its large bermed, aggregated parking lots.
(This could include recommending that no chage be made to the
current system.)
b. Trowbridge & Trowbridge will not consider the off shore island, the lighted
promenade, or removal of the willow row in their scope of work.
c. Trowbridge & Trowbridge will recommend corrective actions to address
the health problems, stagnant water, and other unsanitary conditions
of the duck pond so as to preserve this activity.
In item #3,I would suggest adding the words "and enhance" after the
word maintain.
Thank you for your consideration of my suggestions.
•
XIX UNFINISHED AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS - AGENDA ITEM A
WHEREAS, Common Council on January 2, 1985 adopted the Stewart Park Master
Plan as the "official concept plan for that area", and
WHEREAS, Common Council on April 2, 1986 approved the expenditure of $21 ,500
for preparation of "design development drawings for Stewart Park" ,
and the city subsequently hired Trowbridge and Trowbridge for this
task, and
WHEREAS, Trowbridge and Trowbridge expect to continue to work until February
1987 on this project and have scheduled a series of public meetings
to present findings and to gather public opinion about the park, and
WHEREAS, public involvement in the consideration of the Master Plan has
dramatically increased and broadened in scope over the past five
months , and many members of the public have expressed great dis-
satisfaction with numerous elements of the Master Plan,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that in order to take full advantage of the Y A � '
present availability of the city's consultant, and in recognition C,OS VI`'`.
of the desire of the public to take an active and ongoing role in
determining the future design of Stewart Park,'"that the Sfewart a'J'
Park Master Plan be set aside to allow continued public discussion (fDit:e...e.1-' 1
and the formulation of alternative design development guidelines vw
by Trowbridge and Trowbridge, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the role of Trowbridge and Trowbridge be clarified
as follows:
1) The Master Plan may serve as a resource but is not necessarily hl
a guide to or a constraint upon further park planning; ,,V
2) The following elements of the Master Plan shall be specifically /,
excluded from further consideration: �
a. the spine road system and its large bermed, aggregated
parking lots ,'
b. the off-shore island
c. the lighted promenade
d. the removal of the duck pond
e. the removal of the willow row
3) 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.
)44"-"a-4-
/tom-
XIX UNFINISHED AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS - AGENDA ITEM A
WHEREAS, Common Council on January 2, 1985 adopted the Stewart Park Master
Plan as the "official concept plan for that area", and
WHEREAS, Common Council on April 2, 1986 approved the expenditure of $21,500
for preparation of "design development drawings for Stewart Park",
and the city subsequently hired Trowbridge and Trowbridge for this
task, and
WHEREAS, Trowbridge and Trowbridge expect to continue to work until February
1987 on this project and have scheduled a series of public meetings
to present findings and to gather public opinion about the park, and
WHEREAS, public involvement in the consideration of the Master Plan has
dramatically increased and broadened in scope over the past five
months , and many members of the public have expressed great dis-
satisfaction with numerous elements of the Master Plan,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that in order to take full advantage of the
present availability of the city's consultant, and in recognition
of the desire of the public to take an active and ongoing role in
determining the future design of Stewart Park, that the Stewart
Park Master Plan be set aside to allow continued public discussion
and the formulation of alternative design development guidelines
by Trowbridge and Trowbridge, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the role of Trowbridge and Trowbridge be clarified
as follows:
1) The Master Plan may serve as a resource but is not necessarily
a guide to or a constraint upon further park planning;
2) The following elements of the Master Plan shall be specifically
excluded from further consideration:
a. the spine road system and its large bermed, aggregated
parking lots
b. the off-shore island
c. the lighted promenade
d. the removal of the duck pond
e. the removal of the willow row
3) 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.
} "1:: : .
. " .,1 y
•
•
'
. \
•
� ft
• i.
` f7 t�
• ' t S� - to
N1
! , � f 1 i.r i rt t
•
• 't• 1i i X13 n.; t taf r 1=Fti"`t r.} ia r s ,.
t' A, } 1,7..." L''. y. ',;1'.;;;L:'. 1,
tl i i � � ,: 1 ' t 1 rq 1' y ' t•4".11,.., 't.1.2.4.''12'•
s
1 4 ' 1 i4,..'.7!";:''.yt C
.-,..:-.e.•••;-:,,, .' k w �f �•,IaSS '..it 1
.i t ' t � 1 i } r • 1
1 4 �� 1 +. �+ t � t
• 1 �it A 1 r., `..�' , '4 1,',/.4.5''°(•••'.:1!.'.:,.:44°...',':,%'''''r.'
r I 1- ' ;■9 1.
'
• r� .� �, i 1 i' : _SrS ; .' 1*i- ik• h"{'_�i �i,y.tt,1 F.
>4 ( 1 + h. 1`.
•
r k. I f. '• p' .S N `
1 t ` a ' -t•x
xr I a: 1 T.t., t" r
JL
'"5
•� f j �t ,°-_,.: t
1 ,Sy g -• ti • <% ll •ttr �gJ,i , ,, nr„...,„..
. . .. .
,,,,,,..4..... ,. .
t� 1 ,AI mot) C r
t f ,
1 „ .• rZ S.� i,,
�;
1 ,1 , 10 1 r 4
t 2, lFC �x a�>, , •
•
'1
� 1.14 y } ,1 f s 4 f rr]Lr 1, '4't•',
y` ,
r
i .
.,r•«,: .. - w wr<,.,,.« ..wfw�s.
ill l` .aa
x
. •
'
fit.
','.1,.,i �,
o!q
n . Y rZ ∎.
i •
� pts
•
■ tt` : t+ {
4 ; 4x
c t. ,- t
•
t
•
y %:.,..,!..a
C .;t� tµa r
.--,:;,.-it.,,,:,...,..,
...Lr�y 1�. tis
b'fv•,v r} 1" Yi t • f 4•• t4 a
t K •" i a yjt
•
J•
•
t..A h1 4,;,-.
" t tt N''��•
yr: r • ''.1-•''';:',1,, i. ^ z4t 7y x k r g� K ' S t * b yd i+ t' t< k i�.w1 ,t zc � C 3't....'.',O. tint'.'s,'.� .,arr r ,n. ti
z r\1
3�
ti•
• •
.. � '.... s y e5.t \ r R t •�\. 1 ! t 1 v +d d',L t,Y 1 • 9 a y;; IAT tft k .d1ti tXd Y t; .,',4'0'.,\.-",.-.'„,40 t ,Y t , �6Mi = i S ! yt tqa y', Ap } " t Y•e�`4 C t v a t` it y , la`• .t.'4 + ' r$ }et \ Y J )�, t t „t c t C y �� F" •
"
t t 1 44,..,L'.' t >M s ,4 uA\:\ t § xhc r
' 1 - t• `y;-
\
t•
' s�,� � %q Ss x rN'"` • p�tt g '`,' er ti :. M•s. R • ' :.4'''''
p xs' i S;,V14;1 t
! 3 J t Z`, \ \`�1�, i ^, + sh .s ,` s 4 t t r { : +' cis.
• �'. \ ,\��*1a11�1.7t1� r ` �, .; �"',=g �aS!. �A ew rrA s.f
\ ��T � �a
.t 1 , „i .i~'
11 �� �` F ass r
t Y r-.-; • td Y t !
* 4-4 1�-,jyY
X
- trrss_ gg�. f 4„,,:-:?.:-....:I+, y y�y y, t 3
�. h, } ry 4 4,Y.. � ..tw t ,t4.... ,tt
...-----"r •�,''s�!' •
r + `« 5
I S,
•
•
•
• •
TROWBRIDGE • TROWBRIDGE ASLA
C I fE 1-0
Environmental Designers,Landscape Planners 1y')I L i 1 [ V
and Landscape Architects
4)>4177/.. .AA�I16 1987 w
Jul �11 T
7 '
June 15. 1987 Co,ct*a 7987 LOPMENT
/t4 Off N DOFF/�E * 1�
MEMO:
To: Members of S.P.A.G. '-` `
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,
Peter Trowbridge
Principal
1345 Mecklenburg Road
Ithaca.New York 14850
607 277-1400
Appendix 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 Tvo: 2-5 years Stage Thee: 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.
A. REMOVE EXISTING ROADWAY AND
AND STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM AS
REQUIRED
B. BURY ABOVE GROUND
UTILITIES
C. INSTALL NEW STORM DRAINAGE
SYSTEM
D. INSTALL 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 Two Stage Three
A. 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. RESTORE EXTERIOR
FROM BOATHOUSE 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 Stage 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 one 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 Time
A. CONTRACT WITH ARCHITECT TO A.UNDERTAKE DEVELOPMENT OF LAGOON
TO DESIGN LAGOON PAVILION TO PAVILION AND BOAT DOCKS
ACCOMODATE RESTROOMS AND
BOAT RENTAL
AREA E
Stage One Stage Two Stage Three
A. REGRADE SHORELINE ALONG
FALL CREEK
B. ESTABLISH VEGETATION ALOITG
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 Ole Stage Two 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 Two 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
COMMUNITY DESIRE
C. INSTALL BENCHES
D. ORGANIZE COMMUNITY
ART IN THE PARK PROJECT
AREA I
Stage Ole 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 Three
A. REMOVE TENNIS COURTS FROM A. INSTALL BBQ'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 BB Q'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
•
AREA L
Stage Ole 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 Oze stage Two 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 FUNDRAI SING 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
Siege One Stage Tvo Stage Time
A. DEVELOP CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
FOR MUNICIPAL PIER.
B. CONSTRUCT MUNICIPAL PIER
AREAQ
Stage •ae Stage Two Stage Three
A. REMOVE DIAGONAL ROADWAY A. INSTALL PEDESTRIAN PATH A. COMPLETE MEMORIAL GARDEN
LEADING TO MAIN PAVILION SYSTEM AND DEDICATE RESTORATION
CONPLEX
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. IN STALL ADDITIONAL BENCHES,
D. INSTALL BENCHES SIGNAGE
AREA R
Stage Oae Stage Tvo Stage Three
A. RELOCATE PATH AND ENTRY A. CONSTRUCT SANCTUARY GATE
TO FUERTES BIRD SANCTUARY
B. REVEGETATE SHORELINE
ALONG DRAINAGE WAY
AREA S
Stage Ole Stage Tvo 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 Two 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
AREAU
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 Two 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
a]�y a2S4S 'as r, sawls n0 u ii;
M Val
L0)
T
CA
+.1
CA
O
•
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 Manuel. All site-work improvements are included. Renovation and
restoration of existing perk buildings is not included in the cost estimate. Architectural restoration
costs will need to be generated based on final restoration plans.
All costs 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!:Beach/Lake 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 557623.00
Area O: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:Railway Fence 74,750.00
Area U:Park Entrance 34,619.00
Area V: Lake Shoreline 109,774.00
Area W:Tennis Courts 31,809.03
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 Cascadt7la Boathouse,the
proposed Boathouse deck that overlooks the Wildlife Pond,the roving dock for the cascadilla Boat
Club,and general landscaping and Shoreline stabilization. Restoration of the Boathouse atiuiutie
itself is not included in the estimate.
Area A
Cascadilla Boathouse and
Roving Docks along Fall
Creek
Est. Qudan. Unit Cost Total
1. Roving Dock
a. Prefab Dock $40,000. $50,000. $50,000.
b. Core. 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. 350.001000 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.
(vall 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
15%Contingermr 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 nip-Rap 675 S.Y. 40.00 S.Y. 27,000.
5. Landscaping
a. Trees 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- ;';,720.00
15%Contingency 13,308.00
Total Area B $102,028.00
Ana C
Fall Creek Shoreline
Est uan. Unit Cost Total
1. Grading 4,000 C.Y. 6.50 C.Y. $26,000.00
2. Landscaping
a. Seeding 38,000 S.F. 350.00f1000S.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.P. 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 96 Contingency $ 8,112.00
Total Area C $62,192.00
Area D
Lagoon Pavilion
Est. Qum. 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 Furniture 30 Tables 12Cfliper set 36,000.00
and chairs
c. Waver Fountain 1 650.00 Ea. 650.00
{mall mounted)
Total- $172,74).00
156 Contingency $25,911.00
Total Area D $198,651.00
Area E
South Glade
Est. Qum. Unit Cost Total
1. Esblish 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 4,290.00
Total Area E $32,890.00
Area F
Lagoon
Est Quan. Unit Cost Total
1. Dredge Lagoon 12,500 G.Y. 6.50 C.Y. 81,250.E
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. 350.00?1000S.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
Teti- $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 Quart. Unit Cost Total
1. Fishing Platforms 4384 S.F ea. 18.00 S.F 27,648.00
2. Landscaping
a. Seeding 7,500 S.F. 350.001000 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
AreaI
Beach Lake Shoreline
Est. Quan. Unit Cost Total
1. Beach
Grading 230 C.Y. 6.50 C.Y. 1,500.00
Pea Stone 350 C.Y. 3.00 C.Y. 1,050.00
2. Landscaping
a. Seeding 8,000 S.F. 350.00110 S.F. 2,800.00
3. Furnishings
a. Nev Springs 2 2,000.00 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 Areal $18,687.00
Area J
West Field
Est Quart. 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%Contingency 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' Stone Asphalt 280 L.F. 8.00 L.F. 2,240.00
Total- $94,065.00
159 Continge_3r 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 cortcrete)
2. Proposed Play Equip.
a. Nev Swingset- 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. Neer 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
159 Contingency 11,209.00
Total Area M $85,940.00
Area N
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 Retuning 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. 98,14100
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 1200.00Iset 16,800.00
b. Bollard Lights 10 980.00 Ea. 9,800.00
c. Other Lighting
Total- $484,890.00
1596 Conting y 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. 350.00/1000 S.F. 9,450.00
4. Furnishings
a. Picnic Tables 6 1,800.00 Ea. 10,800.04
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. Qum. Unit Cost Total
1. Constnact Nev Pier 300 L.F. 1335 L.F. 400,000.00
2. Furnishings
a. Penn. Benches 10 900.00 9,000.00
b. Bollard Lighting 10 980.00 9,800.00
Total- $418,800.00
15%Contingency 62,820.00
Total Area P 481,620.00
Area Q.
Mayor Steuart Memorial
Garden
Est. Quan. 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
Fuertes 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%Continge_y 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
& Seeding 30,000 S.F. 350./1000 S.F. 10,500.00
b. Trees 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%Contingency 8,400.00
Total Area S 64,400.00
Area T
Railway Fence
Est Quan. Unit Cost Total
1. Fence 2,600 L.F. 25.00 L.F. 65,000.00
Total- 65,000.00
15%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. 350.00/1000 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%Contingent' 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
Total- 95,456.00
1596 Continge_y 14,318.00
Total Area V 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. Neer 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 M0.00 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%Contingency 4,149.00
Total Area W 31,809.00
Area X
• ParkvideRoadvay,
Parking and
Storm Water System
Est Quan. 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. Const. 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. Nev Curbing 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
1596 Conting y 145,365.00
Total Area X $1,114,470.00
�C49 -...
ti ��ter =��
l'79 lit4''
% 1 tni1711 - i
ATE��.
CITY OF ITHACA
1 OB EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850
DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:272-1713
PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT `` \C9 I j / c",, CODE 607
H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR , .f../,
r \
ti's ,14 i% d 1
l // /
c�4�iJ r . ) r 1 1
rrC[ER '.3 7,98? ;_
J � lth�ca N �f,"�`.
MEMORANDUM '
TO: Members of the Stewart Park Advisory Group (SPAG)
FROM: SPAG Subcommittee Members Leslie Chatterton, Betsey
Darlington, Barbara Ebert, LeMoyne Farrell
RE: Final Draft of the Stewart Park Preservation Goals and
Guidelines
DATE: November 12, 1987
You will recall that at the last meeting of SPAG a subcommittee
was created to make recommendations to Trowbridge-Trowbridge during
preparation of the final draft of the Stewart Park Preservation Goals
and Guidelines. Over the past four months this subcommittee has
thoroughly reviewed all four chapters of the manual and has discussed
positive and negative elements of the guidelines. We feel that the 1...
goals of the manual address the concerns of SPAG and community members
regarding preservation, restoration and maintenance of the park.
Although individual subcommittee members had reservations about
particular guidelines and details, we nevertheless agree that the
Stewart Park Preservation Goals and Guidelines serve as a valuable
resource for future planning and maintenance of Stewart Park.
Enclosed is the final draft of the Goals and Guidelines for your
review. When evaluating the plan we ask SPAG members to keep in mind
that any major changes proposed for the park will undergo further
public hearings as part of Common Council 's budgetary process. The
subcommittee will present its report and make recomendations to the
full SPAG, at a meeting tentatively scheduled for mid December.
LAC:eh
xc:Common Council
Board of Public Works'
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Planning & Development Board
0-hd-SPAG.LAC
"An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program"