historic resources inventory trolley foot bridge · pdf filethe actual span is about...

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.



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.



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


585-262-2035 (phone) 585-262-2054 (fax)

[email protected]

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)





585-262-2035 (phone) 585-262-2054 (fax)

[email protected]

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,





585-262-2035 (phone) 585-262-2054 (fax)

[email protected]

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.





585-262-2035 (phone) 585-262-2054 (fax)

[email protected]

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





585-262-2035 (phone) 585-262-2054 (fax)

[email protected]

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


historic resources inventory trolley foot bridge · pdf filethe actual span is about...

Documents