Upload
dinhdang
View
217
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
B E R O A R C H I T E C T U R E P L LC A R C H I T E C T U R E S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y P R E S E R V A T I O N
Thirty Two Winthrop Street, Rochester, New York 14607
585-262-2035 (phone) • 585-262-2054 (fax) • [email protected] (email)
Bero Architecture PLLC 11150.Cover.Trolley.14611.doc
Historic Resources Inventory
Trolley Foot Bridge
Cornell University Means Restriction Project Historic Resources Report
Bero Architecture PLLC 11150.Inventory.Trolley.14611.doc
1
ADDRESS/LOCATION
NAME DATE OF
CONSTRUCTION
Crossing Cascadilla Creek
east of College Avenue
Trolley Foot Bridge 2006
DESCRIPTION:
This is a single-span pedestrian deck bridge with a concrete deck about 130 feet long
and 11 feet wide. The actual span is about 112” because the north foundation is about
18’ south of the north abutment. Beneath the deck are two steel plate girders with
welded flanges; bottom edges of the webs have been have been cut to form gentle
curves mimicking arches; cantilevers at the north end are tapered. Lateral bracing and
support for utility piping is provided by steel angles between the beams.
Railings are aluminum. Stanchions are square tubes anchored to the concrete deck. Top
railings are continuous square tubes set on the diagonal (diagonals of the sections are
vertical and horizontal) with tops about 4’4” above the deck. Bottom rails are smaller
square tubes spanning between stanchions. Balusters are vertical square tubes.
Painted steel security fencing, approximately 4’7” high, was installed above the upper
rail as part of the temporary Means Restriction project in spring of 2010. Vertical pipes
supporting the fencing are clamped to the aluminum rail stanchions.
SIGNIFICANCE:
The Trolley Bridge has not been evaluated for National Register eligibility by the State
Historic Preservation Office. It is unlikely it would be considered eligible at this time
due to its recent construction.
Architectural:
We are not aware of any architectural significance.
Historical:
The original bridge in this location was constructed circa 1893, bringing the electric
railway to the Cornell campus. Trolley cars traversed this bridge to a point near the old
Armory (approximately the present location of the Engineering Quad). The line was
subsequently expanded to form a loop through campus and across Fall Creek to the
developing Cornell Heights subdivision.
The present bridge dates to 2006.
Cornell University Means Restriction Project Historic Resources Report
Bero Architecture PLLC 11150.Inventory.Trolley.14611.doc
2
INTEGRITY (Aspects of integrity defined by the Department of the Interior are location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association)
Not applicable. In this report concepts of integrity apply to resources over 50 years old;
resources less than 50 years old are rarely considered “historic.”
The Trolley Foot Bridge in 2011.
Cornell University Means Restriction Project Historic Resources Report
Bero Architecture PLLC 11150.Inventory.Trolley.14611.doc
3
The original trolley bridge is visible at the center of this view from the mid-1890s (the
predecessor to the Stone Arch Bridge is at top). From Young, p. 26.
B E R O A R C H I T E C T U R E P L L C
M E M O R A N D U M
Bero Architecture PLLC
11150.Schematic Design Memo.Final.14711.doc
Thirty Two Winthrop Street, Rochester, New York 14607
585-262-2035 (phone) 585-262-2054 (fax)
DATE: RE:
May 26, 2011 Schematic Design Evaluation
TO: PROJECT:
David Cutter, University Landscape Architect Means Restriction Project
Cornell University Cornell University
102 Humphreys Ithaca, NY
Ithaca, NY 14853
FROM:
John Bero and Katie Eggers Comeau PROJECT NO:
11150
Purpose
The Ithaca Planning Board is charged with ensuring:
Protection of, and compatibility with, other nearby features and areas of importance to
the community, including but not limited to parks, landmarks, and historic districts.1
In addition, any Federal or State actions, such as funding, permits, or approvals, require
evaluation of projects for potential impacts on historic resources.
This memo evaluates the impact the Means Restriction Project will have on historically
significant bridges, in order to minimize negative impacts and reduce surprises, controversy, and
delays during the review and approval process.
Limitations
This evaluation is based on a review of the following documents, which you supplied to us:
• Cornell University and the City of Ithaca, “Assessment and Research of Bridges.”
Prepared by Office dA, 1 November 2010. Accessed at
http://meansrestrictionstudy.fs.cornell.edu/file/11.01CornellAnalysis-150.pdf.
• Bridge Means Restriction Pre-Schematic Concepts Presentation, 2 March 2011.
Video online at http://meansrestrictionstudy.fs.cornell.edu/studyDocs.cfm.
• Schematic Design submittal documents transmitted 19 May 2011.
The project scope did not include examination of impacts on surrounding historic resources.
1 Code of the City of Ithaca Section 276-7 A (1) (c)
Cornell University Means Restriction Project Historic Resources Report
Bero Architecture PLLC
11150.Schematic Design Memo.Final.14711.doc
Thirty Two Winthrop Street, Rochester, New York 14607
585-262-2035 (phone) 585-262-2054 (fax)
Affected Resources
The Means Restriction project involves modifications to seven bridges on and adjacent to the
Cornell campus. The seven bridges are shown below.
Figure 1. Affected bridges. Map by NADAAA inc.
The dates of the bridges are as follows:
Constructed Likely Eligible
Beebe Dam Bridge 1997 No
Stewart Avenue Bridge (Cascadilla Creek) 1962 Yes
Stewart Avenue Bridge (Fall Creek) 1942 Yes
Stone Arch Bridge 1896 No
Suspension Bridge 1961 Yes
Thurston Avenue Bridge 1960/2006 Yes
Trolley Foot Bridge 2006 No
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) database indicates Stewart Avenue Bridge (Fall
Creek) and Thurston Avenue Bridge are eligible for the National Register. The other bridges
have not been formally evaluated for National Register eligibility. In our separate Historic
Resources Inventory we provide our opinion on the eligibility of these structures. In our opinion,
Cornell University Means Restriction Project Historic Resources Report
Bero Architecture PLLC
11150.Schematic Design Memo.Final.14711.doc
Thirty Two Winthrop Street, Rochester, New York 14607
585-262-2035 (phone) 585-262-2054 (fax)
SHPO is likely to consider the Stewart Avenue Bridge (Cascadilla Creek) and the Suspension
Bridge eligible based on their design. We believe the Stone Arch Bridge is not currently eligible
due to recent (1987) modifications that have not yet achieved their own significance. Because
the Beebe Dam Bridge and Trolley Foot Bridge are both of recent construction and the current
structures have no outstanding significance, we believe they are unlikely to be considered
eligible for the National Register.
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
The Secretary of the Interior promulgates standards for four “treatments” of historic resources:
Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. The appropriate standards to
apply in evaluating this project are the standards for Rehabilitation, defined by the National Park
Service as “the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair,
alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical,
cultural, or architectural values.”2
Following is a citation of each of the ten Standards for Rehabilitation and analysis of how the
Means Restriction project addresses the standard.
Standard 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use
that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site
and environment.
Analysis: There will be no changes in use. All bridges will remain pedestrian and/or vehicular
bridges. The project is in conformance with Standard 1.
Standard 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The
removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a
property shall be avoided.
Analysis: The bridges will not be physically altered by the addition of nets. No historic materials
will be removed or altered. The nets will be visible from surrounding vantage points, but
because the material has a high level of transparency, they will not interfere with the viewer’s
ability to perceive and appreciate the design of the bridges. The project is in conformance with
Standard 2.
Standard 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and
use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding
conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be
undertaken.
Analysis: There will be no changes that create a false sense of historical development. The
project is in conformance with Standard 3.
2 See http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standards/rehabilitation.htm.
Cornell University Means Restriction Project Historic Resources Report
Bero Architecture PLLC
11150.Schematic Design Memo.Final.14711.doc
Thirty Two Winthrop Street, Rochester, New York 14607
585-262-2035 (phone) 585-262-2054 (fax)
Standard 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic
significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
Analysis: The only changes that are being removed are nonhistoric alterations to the handrails.
This includes the temporary chain-link security fencing on all bridges and the vertical bars added
to the Suspension Bridge handrails. None of these alterations have acquired their own
significance. Removal of these features will improve or fully restore views from the bridges.
The project is in conformance with Standard 4.
Standard 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.
Analysis: There will be no alteration to any distinctive features, finishes, construction techniques
or examples of craftsmanship. The project is in conformance with Standard 5.
Standard 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where
the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature
shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where
possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by
documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
Analysis: Not applicable. There will be no replacement of historic features.
Standard 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to
historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate,
shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
Analysis: Not applicable. There will be no chemical or physical treatments and no cleaning of
structures.
Standard 8. Significant archaeological resources affected by a project shall be protected
and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be
undertaken.
Analysis: The project is not expected to affect any archaeological resources.
Standard 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not
destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
Analysis: Schematic design documents supplied to us do not indicate removal of any historic
features of any of the bridges. The potential for damage could exist where the nets are attached
to the bridges; the schematic design documents did not provide details regarding the method of
attachment. Drawings for the Stone Arch Bridge and Trolley Foot Bridge indicate their nets will
be anchored at the ground, with no physical connection to the bridges. This approach precludes
Cornell University Means Restriction Project Historic Resources Report
Bero Architecture PLLC
11150.Schematic Design Memo.Final.14711.doc
Thirty Two Winthrop Street, Rochester, New York 14607
585-262-2035 (phone) 585-262-2054 (fax)
any damage to the bridge. For the other five bridges, as long as holes and other physical
alterations to the bridge are kept to a minimum and visually unobtrusive, we see no conflict with
the first part of Standard 9.
Regarding the second part of Standard 9, new work will be clearly differentiated from the old
through use of a light, flexible modern material (tensile steel mesh) distinctly different from the
traditional, solid structural materials (steel, concrete, and masonry) that characterize the bridges.
The nets will clearly read as an adaptation of an existing structure and not as an original or
historic element.
There is an inherent conflict in Standard 9 between the concepts of “differentiation” and
“compatibility.” Some projects, such as the 1987 modifications to the Stone Arch Bridge,
emphasize “compatibility,” attempting to match or closely mimic historic design with only subtle
differences to allow the viewer to distinguish new from old construction. Others, such as the
present project, emphasize differentiation, allowing the historic property to read as distinctly
separate from the new elements. We believe the latter approach is appropriate for the present
project.
The project is in conformance with Standard 9.
Standard 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be
undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity
of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Analysis: The nets will be entirely removable and, when removed, will leave the form and
integrity of the bridges unchanged. The project is in conformance with Standard 9.
Summary
The choice of tensile steel mesh nets as a safety barrier has many advantages from a historic
preservation point of view, and is in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
The nets permit maximum visibility from the bridges to the gorges, and as shown in the
schematic design documents will have minimal visual impact on the bridges. Installation of
safety netting as shown in the schematic design drawings is a treatment that can be reversed with
no lasting impact on the structures.
Respectfully submitted,
John F. Bero, Senior Architect
Katie Eggers Comeau, Architectural Historian
Bero Architecture PLLC