View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Cultural Resources Cultural Resources ProtectionProtection aa
ProPro‐‐active Approach active Approach George R. Frantz, AICPGeorge R. Frantz, AICP
Presented to American Planning AssociationPresented to American Planning Association Chicago, IL, November 23, 2010Chicago, IL, November 23, 2010
1
Image Source: www.nysgis.state.ny.us
The Issue
Native American historical and cultural sites Native American historical and cultural sites have fared poorly at the hand of the design have fared poorly at the hand of the design
professions.professions.
““Shovel and shutShovel and shut‐‐upup””
approach approach unfortunately still exists in too many places.unfortunately still exists in too many places.
2
The IssueArchaeological sites unknown quantity;Federal & state laws limited effectiveness;Generally only apply where public $$$ involved;New York: State Environmental Quality Review – public & private projects.
Cartoon: Dolores Hayden, Grand Domestic
Revolution. 1980
3
The IssueTangible Resources vs. Intangible Resources
4
Project GenesisDesire to locate and protect the site of Coreorgonel, an Iroquoian town of +/‐ 2,000 destroyed by American forces in Revolutionary War. Image Source: www.nysgis.state.ny.us
5
Project Genesis
Desire to avoid the conflict that many times erupts when developers’ plans are pitted against protection of cultural resources.
Image Source: www.nysgis.state.ny.us
6
The ChallengeAccommodating growth and development.
whileProtecting an important cultural resource and sensitive Native American site, and doing so in a unique, cost effective and non‐adversarial manner.
Image Source: Microsoft Bing
7
Project ObjectivesShort‐circuit potential controversy using pre‐emptive cultural resources survey to identify areas of archaeological importance in the valley.
Develop a model for collaboration between academic institutions, local governments and landowners to identify & protect cultural resources.
8
Project ObjectivesPermit the design and approval of two future residential developments in the area while protecting critical historic and cultural resources.
Create a constituency within the community for the protection of cultural resources.
9
Methodology
• Phase I‐a literature search & report;
• Phase I‐b shovel test pits on 125 acres;
10
Methodology• Parkland dedications
ID’ed in collaboration with developers;
• Development phasing determined
• Phase II excavations on 5 features identified in Phase I‐b.
11
EvolutionA catalyst for a multi‐year research, design and public education initiative.
A place redefined: the Inlet Valley from highway corridor to an area rich in history.
12
“We’re Not Dead Yet”A rediscovery of a rich native American heritage in the occupation of the Inlet valley by the Tutelo/Saponi peoples.
A new public park that includes a space set aside for contemplation and commemoration of Native American heritage.
13
ParticipantsDepartment of City & Regional Planning, Department of Landscape Architecture, Cornell University.
Town of Ithaca Planning Department.
Developers : Eddydale Homes & E. Tomlinson, III
Cayuga Nation of Indians
Tutelo and Saponi nations
14
Lessons LearnedCommunities can and should pro‐actively embark on cultural resources surveys wherever the historic record shows the potential presence of archaeological site.
15
Lessons LearnedPlanners can and should work with landowners and the community to determine presence of archaeological sites before design begins.
16
Lessons LearnedThe Native American community can and should be brought to the table early on as an active partner and valuable informant.
17
Lessons LearnedColleges and universities have an important role:
critical expertise in archaeology;
resources to conduct excavations.
18
Lessons LearnedA proactive, cooperative approach to identifying cultural resources is both practical and cost effective.
Controversy over historic and cultural resources can be short‐circuited.
The development review and approval process does not have to be delayed.
19
Lessons LearnedThe authority municipalities possess in many states to require park and open space dedications of developers can be a tool for protecting cultural resources.
20
Present & FutureA new constituency for the protection of the Coreorgonel townsite is established.
21
Present & FutureTown of Ithaca in September 1999 named one of two park sites acquired as a result of the IVAS “Tutelo Park.”
Dedicated the park to preserving the heritage of the native American presence in the Inlet Valley.
22
Present & FutureIn September 2006 the commemoration was expanded into the “Homecoming Festival of Native American Culture,” a one‐day event featuring music, dance, food, presentations and exhibits at Tutelo Park.
23
IVAS Part II
March 2010Local micro‐brewery acquires site to build new brewery/restaurant/beer garden;
Presents sketch plan to Town of Ithaca Planning Board;
Proposed development outside IVAS test area.
24
IVAS Part IIUnder NY State
Environmental Quality Review Act, Town of
Ithaca must consider potential impacts on historic and cultural
resources prior to approving project.
25
IVAS Part II
26
• Developer hires archaeologist to complete Phase I‐a,
Phase I‐b studies;
• Development site is “clean;”
• Report incorporated in Town’s environmental review
27
Questions?George R. Frantz, AICPGeorge R. Frantz, AICP
Department of City & Regional PlanningDepartment of City & Regional PlanningCornell University, Ithaca, NYCornell University, Ithaca, NY
grf4@cornell.edugrf4@cornell.edu
Recommended