cultural resources protection: a proactive approach
DESCRIPTION
Native American archaeological sites have fared poorly at the hands of the design and planning professions. This case study highlights an innovative approach to cultural resources protection that planners and local governments can implement to protect such resources in a cost effective, collaborative manner.TRANSCRIPT
Cultural Resources Protection
a
Pro-active Approach George R. Frantz, AICP
Presented to American Planning AssociationChicago, IL, November 23, 2010
1
Image Source: www.nysgis.state.ny.us
The Issue
Native American historical and cultural sites have fared poorly at the hand of the design professions.
“Shovel and shut-up” approach 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 Issue
Tangible Resources vs. Intangible Resources
4
Project Genesis
Desire 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 Learned
Colleges 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 II
March 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 II
Under 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, AICP
Department of City & Regional PlanningCornell University, Ithaca, NY