Cultural Resources Cultural Resources ProtectionProtection

aa

Pro-active Approach Pro-active Approach George R. Frantz, AICPGeorge R. Frantz, AICP

Presented to American Planning AssociationPresented to American Planning AssociationChicago, 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 shut-up” approach Shovel and shut-up” approach unfortunately still exists in too many places.unfortunately still exists in too many places.

2

The Issue Archaeological 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 Challenge Accommodating growth

and development.

while Protecting 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 Objectives Short-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 Objectives Permit 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

Evolution A 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

Participants Department 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 Learned Communities can and

should pro-actively embark on cultural resources surveys wherever the historic record shows the potential presence of archaeological site.

15

Lessons Learned Planners can and

should work with landowners and the community to determine presence of archaeological sites before design begins.

16

Lessons Learned The 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 Learned A 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 Learned The 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 & Future A new constituency for the protection of

the Coreorgonel townsite is established.

21

Present & Future Town 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 & Future In 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 IIMarch 2010 Local 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