A Fluid Relic: A Dynamic Conversation between a National Recreation Area and its Past

A Fluid Relic: A Dynamic Conversation between a National Recreation Area and the Past Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Atlanta, GA

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Landscape architecture

By

Chelsea M. Miller; August 2012

Chairperson: Daniel W. Krall

CORNELL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL APPROVAL OF THESIS/DISSERTATION Name of candidate:

Marta

Chelsea

First Name

Middle Name

Miller

Family Name

Graduate Field: Landscape Architecture Graduate Field: Landscape Architecture Degree: M.L.A.

Degree:

M.L.A.

Title of Thesis/Dissertation: A Fluid Relic: A Dynamic Conversation between a National Recreation Area and the Past

COMMITTEE SIGNATURES: Chairperson: _________________________________________

Date: _________

Member: ____________________________________________

Date: _________

Member: ____________________________________________

Date: _________

Member: ____________________________________________

Date: _________

Member: ____________________________________________

Date: _________

LICENSE TO USE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL I do hereby give license to Cornell University and all its faculty and staff to use the above-mentioned copyrighted material in any manner consonant with, or pursuant to, the scholarly purposes of Cornell University, including lending such materials to students or others through its library services or through interlibrary services or through interlibrary loan, and delivering copies to sponsors of my research, but excluding any commercial use of such material. This license shall remain valid throughout the full duration of my copyright.

____________________________________

(Student Signature)

i

ABSTRACT The National Park System (NPS) is in need of an image alteration. Although the National Parks still attract millions of visitors each year, the experience has largely been the same for 50 years. The historical paradigm of the National Parks has been somewhat limited the contemporary usage while the idea of modern interpretation seems antithetical to the purpose of a “traditional” National Park and its potential for historic integrity. Between the history and the present usage exists a perceived boundary. In response to a call for a modern interpretation and conversation about the future of the National Park System based on the Parks for the People Van Alen Competition, new exploration and possibilities for the parks are encouraged.

This thesis aims to blur the line between this perceived boundary in favor of a landscape integrated with its relic bits of history. The site chosen for this thesis presents an additional dilemma: Is a National Recreation Area different from a National Park?

The Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (CRNRA) is more than the land which the NPS owns: it is also a platform to interpret the rich culture suspended within its boundaries. The park builds the platform which extends an offer for people to share its resources and experience the amenities.

For this study the CRNRA will be analyzed with an emphasis on historical components, their evolution throughout CRNRA history and their modern-day context. This thesis aims to discover the physical historical context of the CRNRA and what a dynamic history of the CRNRA looks like. Most importantly, how can this dynamic history engage a variety of present-day user groups?

ii

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Chelsea Miller was born in Juneau, Alaska, raised and educated in Northwest Washington and Southeast Alaska. She studied Architecture at Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago, IL where she received her Bachelor’s of Science in Architecture in 2009. Her academic journey has taken her from the West Coast, to the Midwest and, finally, to the East Coast all in the pursuit of a more comprehensive design education. From interior to exterior, past to present she has originated a bright future.

Figure 1.1: Picture of Author with “Park Ranger” iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to Patty Wissinger and the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area Park Rangers for your generosity.

Chris and Kristie: Thank you for making life easier! I truly appreciate your assistance with everything from technical troubles to Grad logistics to having a good ol’ fashioned conversation. Thank you.

My Dear Cornell Friends: Thank you for your open ears and kindred spirits. I cannot imagine this experience without any of you and I know it was made better because you were a part of it. I will miss you but this is not goodbye. See you again soon.

My PFTP team: Thanks for being the best! What a wonderful adventure we’re all been on: Way down yonder to the Chattahoochee and back. I know y’all are destined for greatness: may our paths cross in the future and may you ever water ski in blue jeans.

Kathryn Louise Gleason: You may not have realized it but you really inspired me at the start of my thesis. I know I did not utilize your talents to the best of my advantage, as I should have, but you have such a gentle, perceptive way of seeing to the heart of a convoluted problem and making it more clear. Thank you.

Marc Lucien Miller: Thank you for initiating this wild and crazy ride down the Chattahoochee River. Without your efforts I would not have had this opportunity nor worked with such talented teammates. We most certainly would not have won the first stage of the competition and we might never have completed at all. Thank you.

Daniel Wayne Krall: I can never thank you enough for all of the tireless efforts and inspired editing. My thesis could not have been in better hands and I know it is better because of you. I especially appreciate your candor and encouragement. I always felt that each time we met my work was improving and that my thesis was moving forward in a positive direction. Thanks for getting me here.

I would like to thank my loving family: My mother, Heidi Olis, who encouraged me to apply to Grad School and to take the leap of faith in myself. My Dad, Jeffre Miller, for giving me words of wisdom and inspiring me with his strength. My Dad, Michael Olis, for driving me to Cornell in the first place and always looking out for me. My sister, Chasina Olis, for her sweet care packages and sisterly love. My brother, Walker Olis, for that initial drive to see Cornell and the cows. My sister, Shavanna Pinder, for helping to keep me stay sane and always listening. My Uncle Travis for paving the way.

My Love: Rafal Stawarz. Thank you for always being there for me, encouraging me, listening through the tough times and creating so many of the good times. You have been my rock, my confidante and my better half. Thank you for waiting. I love you.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

v

LIST OF FIGURES

iv

PART I: BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH

1

I. THESIS STATEMENT

2

II. METHODOLOGY

5

III. WAYS OF LOOKING AT THE CRNRA/ RESEARCH

11

1. What Is A Park?

11

2. What Is A National Recreation Area?

16

3. How Does History Inform Design?

20

IV: PART I CONCLUSION

24

PART II: FINDINGS AND INTERVENTIONS

26

V. THE COMPETITION SITE: CRNRA

36

VI. SITE INFORMATION: POSSIBILITIES AND CHALLENGES

41

VII. 3 INDIVIDUAL INTERVENTIONS

46

A. Sope Creek

49

Site Description, Intervention, Conclusion B. Hyde Farm

67

Site Description, Intervention, Conclusion C. Jones Bridge to Medlock Bridge

76

Site Description, Intervention, Conclusion VIII. CONCLUSION

84

APPENDIX

88

BIBLIOGRAPHY

102

v

LIST OF FIGURES (Note: All figures are the work of the author unless otherwise noted)

Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2

Picture of Author with a “Park Ranger” Parc de La Vilette

iii 14

Figure 1.3 Figure 1.4 Figure 1.5 Figure 1.6 Figure 1.7 Figure 1.8 Figure 1.9 Figure 1.10 Figure 1.11

National Recreation Area Maps & Photos Map of Georgia and Relevent Counties Site Analysis Site Analysis Continued Site Land Parcel Evolution CRNRA 2012 Map 1972 Urban Heat Map 1993 Urban Heat Map Parcel Evolution and Atlanta’s Urban Sprawl Site-Adjacent Population Density Sherman Crossing the Chattahoochee River Collection of Research images Photos from Site Visit Historic Remnants Symbols of Historic Remnants Location Map of Historic Remnant Sites Historic Remnant Site Photos Cochran Shoals Unit Site Map Sope Creek Site Map Site Map with Historic Ruins Site Photos Photos of Site Entry Master Plan of Site Entry Master Plan of Site Ruins Rendering of New Bridge Rendering of New Trail Rendering of Raceway Trail Rendering of Ruin Potential

19 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Figure 1.12 Figure 1.13 Figure 1.14 Figure 1.15 Figure 1.16 Figure 1.17 Figure 1.18 Figure 1.19 Figure 1.20 Figure 1.21 Figure 1.22 Figure 1.23 Figure 1.24 Figure 1.25 Figure 1.26 Figure 1.27 Figure 1.28 Figure 1.29 Figure 1.30

35 39 40 42 44 45 47 48 50 51 52 53 56 60 61 62 63 64 65

vi

LIST OF FIGURES cont.

(Note: All figures are the work of the author unless otherwise noted)

Figure 1.31 Figure 1.32 Figure 1.33 Figure 1.34 Figure 1.35 Figure 1.36 Figure 1.37 Figure 1.38

Hyde Farm Existing Site Plan Hyde Farm Existing Plan Hyde Farm Site Photos Hyde Farm Rendering 1 & 2 Hyde Farm Rendering 3 & 4 Medlock Bridge Unit to Jones Bridge Unit Existing Site Maps Medlock Bridge Unit to Jones Bridge Unit Site Photos Final Chosen Site Renderings

68 69 70 74 75 77 79 83

vii

viii

PART I: BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH

1

I. THESIS STATEMENT “We value dynamic conversations that enhance public engagement.” –National Park Service This thesis explores the Historical Context of the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area. Located along the Brevard Fault Zone it has essentially been “locked in place, never to meander. Throughout prehistoric man’s inhabitance of the site through present National Recreation Area: the presence of the Chattahoochee River has remained constant. The site’s status as a “National Recreation Area” acts as a catalyst (or agent of change) by which the history of the site must be leveraged. This living system is constantly changing to the site’s advantage. It helps the site to remain relevant while the site history offers depth and meaning to Atlanta residents. However, the site itself is very stratified. Only 15 sections of land are developed along a 48 mile stretch of the Chattahoochee River, which leaves gaps in the cohesion of the NRA and valuable historical areas as “off limits.” Furthermore, this site makes up 70% of Atlanta’s green space but is not read from the ground as a complete green space system. The only reliable, absolute connection is the Chattahoochee River. While it is a popular site, only certain user groups utilize this resource, often from adjacent neighborhoods as opposed to the entire city of Atlanta. This is just one of the many interesting challenges of the site. The most pertinent question is: “How can the historic legacy of the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area be incorporated into the visitor experience while responding to the current desired uses of the site?” –PFTP competition entry This study postulates that the answer will lie in rethinking and reimagining the historic remnants of the site and documenting present-day usage of the site. However, the traditional methods of Historic Preservation Documentation and the traditional Landscape Design approach will not be sufficient as stand-alone methods. Tradition-

2

ally, one documents “history” according to the objects (architectural fragments and historical remnants) as they are placed in the landscape and their relation to important events or persons of that site. These objects are regarded as stationary and stagnant: relics, if you will. However, other conceptions of the landscape can be different. At one point the landscape was seen as an object, but through time we have come to realize that it is a dynamic system with multiple connections and networks. Often geographers use the term “landscape” interchangeably with “ecologies”. This approach is viewed as seeing the landscape as constantly in flux, or as a dynamic system.

My interest lies in the combination of these two approaches. A new approach will be formed by, first, thoroughly documenting the past and present of the site.

Second, by taking this information and creating a series of drawings which visually describe the morphology, I will create documents which will help the visitor to understand this changing paradigm. I will consider the park as a disruptive technology. Typically used to describe innovative business models or products, disruptive technologies are those that create landscapes with emergent social and economic benefits. Relative to the National Recreation Areas, the term describes a physical landscape capable of transforming how park visitors perceive the National Park System, the role of sustainability in contemporary land management practices, and how multiple user groups may engage the landscape and have shared experiences. I intend to create a transformative platform in a manner that creates new social networks based on how people engage the site.

The history of the site, or any site, is in a state of constant flux. Physical structures have been created at different times throughout the site’s evolution. When the terrain has undergone a change, often present-day remnants were created fresh. I think the challenge of this site lies in documenting this change in a new way: Create drawings and conduct research based on dynamic history. I believe that this involves the creation of drawings in a highly symbolic method: these drawings truly capture the site at a moment in time. In a sense they are photographic and a symbol of the site. But most importantly they are informative and factual. Fluid relics.

3

In the past, parks considered to have historic significance have highlighted and monumentalized historic elements and thus have frozen a park in a specific moment in time, keeping it isolated from its contemporary context. This limits park identity, therefore excluding a range of uses and users. A recreation area responds to the changing desires of its user population and therefore is constantly evolving, potentially erasing sites of historic significance. How can history be leveraged by a National Recreation Area to create a model that is dynamic, but grounded in the historic events that define it as a place? How is it that multiple periods of time and types of uses may be overlapped in order to create a vibrant landscape? How can the historic legacy of the Chattahoochee Recreation Area be incorporated into the visitor experience while responding to the current desired uses of the site?”

“…preservation constructs a story of the past through the lens of the present…” – Julie Riesenweber, (“Landscape Preservation and Cultural Geography.” Cultural Landscapes pp. 32)

4

II. METHODOLOGY Van Alen’s Parks for the People Competition, upon which this thesis is based, was broken up into 6 phases over the course of two semesters, beginning Fall 2011 within a Pre-thesis seminar and extending through Spring 2012 semester: 1-Competition/Thesis Preparation 2- Thesis Prep/Remote Mapping and Site research 3-Mapping/Investigations 4- Investigations/Preliminary Strategies 5- Strategies/Proposals 6- Findings and Documentation The deliverables from this process were compiled drawings and text to accurately document the project. Below is a more detailed description of each phase of the process Competition/ Thesis Preparation: The first phase consisted of a pre-thesis seminar and Van Alen Competition which was organized by the competition coordinator.

This research phase helped us to not only to explore the question “What is a National Park today?” but took it even further to ask: “What is a Modern Park?” The research phase helped me to generate my thesis question as well as provide me with a solid basis of park-based reading. Largely, the deliverable for these studies was the delineation of our choice of competition site (CRNRA), competition proposal and the reward of winning the first stage of the Van Alen Parks for the People competition.

Here is the winning proposal statement (for full competition document see appendix i):

5

Premise (Parks for the People Statement)

Over the course of the past fifteen years public parks have garnered increasing interest by design professionals. This can be attributed to the tangible impacts of rapid development that has manifested itself through economic opportunities in the form of public, private and shared landscape-scaled initiatives.

Despite growing interest surrounding large parks in particular, the National Parks of America have been overlooked and in some cases are in jeopardy of losing relevance to the contemporary American public. As an example, during the current economic decline, the parks system has seen a decrease in overall attendance.

This is inconsistent with their conventional model, which shows that attendance increases during times of economic downturn.

Socially and economically, the development of open space has resulted in unique partnerships, spatial hybrids and design strategies that leverage time as well as context. Contemporary parks have developed in parallel with the transformation of ecological thought from a science that embraces steady state logic to one that accepts change as an integral part of ecological fitness. Typically applied within urban contexts, these new design frameworks such as landscape and ecological urbanism elevate open space to the level of importance of the architectural object with respect to both spatial and performative qualities.

It is important to note that these contemporary conceptions of landscape and urbanism build on the foundation of significantly older agendas attempting to describe ecological sustainability. These ideas exemplify an evolving land ethic born out of the mid 20th century writings of visionaries such as Aldo Leopold and Rachel Carson, and were concerned with the protection of natural areas and wildlife for the benefit of people. The core principles of the National Park Service were established in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with a similar set of values. This approach to treating the American Landscape as something that requires protection has become an almost sacrosanct part of the National Park Service mission, and continues to be a theme central to the National Parks’ role as a public amenity. However, this strategy is not in

6

alignment with many aspects of contemporary park practices, social attitudes towards sustainability and the federal park system, as well as realities of financial operations, nor does it address many of the sites acquired by the National Park Service during the last 40 years.

Arguably, the National Recreation Areas are the most challenging of the National Parks sites. Typically these sites embody the Park principles of engagement and expansion, but do not visibly support sustainability, research, and reverence for place.

“Reverence” in particular demonstrates the disconnect between the intended role of the National Park Service and the public’s perceived role of recreation areas. This asynchronous relationship of a park site relative to a park paradigm is demonstrated in sites such as the Presidio of San Francisco, Gateway National Recreation Area in New York and the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, near Atlanta, Georgia. All three of these sites exhibit urban adjacencies, operational issues, site development patterns, and public usage that would be more in alignment with contemporary large parks than with the historic mission statement of the National Park Service.

Therefore, understanding the historic uses and contemporary imperatives of a National Recreation Area including sustainability, economic viability, regional demographics, user groups, materiality and network legibility is of value to the entire system as it presents an opportunity to create landscapes that engage the public in a dynamic manner. Our research and design process will investigate the following questions: “What is a National Park today?” “What distinguishes a National Park from a National Recreation Area?” and “How will National Parks be interpreted in the future?” Through this investigation we will address the needs of present and future generations.

Most importantly, we will consider the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area as a test case to address and update the core values and initiatives of the Parks Service through strategies that are designed to enhance future site operations, land management, and planning while maintaining active public interfaces. We seek to create a dynamic model, or set of adaptable rules that can be used in a variety of contexts and settings to create both relevant and successful parks.

7

Therefore, we will not approach the park as an object, but as a dynamic system with multiple connections and networks. We will address the park at multiple scales both in its surrounding region and beyond. We will consider the park not as an amenity but as disruptive technology. Typically used to describe innovative business models or products, disruptive technologies are those that create landscapes with emergent social and economic benefits. Relative to the National Recreation Areas, the term is applied to describe a physical landscape capable of transforming how park visitors perceive the National Park system, the role of sustainability in contemporary land management practice, and how multiple user groups may engage the landscape and have shared experiences. We intend to create a transformative platform in a manner that creates new social networks based on how people engage the site.

8

PARKS FOR THE PEOPLE PHASES Thesis Prep/Remote Mapping and Site research: Students shall continue to develop their thesis topics and research. In addition, students will be revising their investigations based on comments from members of the committee to include preliminary metrics. Deliverables: preliminary site maps, thesis questions, preliminary research metrics and/or matrix.

Mapping/Investigations: Thesis students shall be responsible for mapping and representation methods that best convey the nature of the problematic embedded in their respective topic. As the first phase within the spring semester, students shall be required to respond to their research in a manner that generates agendas to be investigated once on site. Deliverables: research metrics and matrix applied site to generate site mapping and analysis.

Investigations/Preliminary Strategies: This is the testing phase of thesis projects.

Students shall be responsible for identifying methods of representation that present opportunities for design solutions. Once this is complete, students shall present a set of potential scenarios that may be further developed. Deliverables: initial site strategies and proposals applied to sites as identified through the matrix

Strategies/Proposals: During this phase one of the scenarios from phase four is developed as a design proposal. The scenario selected for further proposal shall be chosen based on its ability to best reveal the problem embedded in the thesis proposal. Deliverables: revised site strategies and proposals with one site addressed in detail.

Findings and Documentation: Open reviews will be announced within the home departments of participating students and all departments within their respective graduate fields of study. Copies of the thesis shall be made available in the home departments, and within the Cornell Library System. A round table will be

9

scheduled with faculty members who also served as thesis advisors, to support continued collaborative projects across the Cornell Campus. Finally, a document shall be prepared for the Van Alen Institute, and all other presentation materials as requested. Deliverables: compiled drawings and text to accurately document the projects.

10

III. WAYS OF LOOKING AT THE CRNRA/ RESEARCH

#1 WHAT IS A MODERN PARK? In a Fall 2010 Pre-thesis Seminar, and the first step of the competition, the topics listed below were designated by the competition coordinator as areas of research to better prepare the class for the competition. The goal was to analyze what defines a modern park. Students looked at the National Park System with park-based reading assignments, through 6 lenses. (See Pre-thesis Bibliography for the complete reading list Page 76-77):

-The Emergent Park:

How are uncertainty and adaptive management incorporated into park planning?

-Park as Curation:

What is the role of the park and what determines its legibility?

-Park as Lab:

Can the park be seen as an experimental space, a field in flux and/or painterly space?

-Park as Economic Incubator:

Can the park be a revenue generating entity and/or self-sustaining?

-Park as Network:

How does the park incorporate technology and create social, infrastructural, and natural networks?

-Parkitecture:

How does architecture influence park experience, legibility, and identity and is it the sole means to designate place?

11

The two research areas and readings which I found most relevant to my interests were “The Emergent Park” and ‘Park as Curation”. What follows is a brief overview of that research including readings, discussion and questions articulated.

THE EMERGENT PARK: How are uncertainty and adaptive management incorporated into park planning? The emergent park includes a master plan which reclaims or repurposes a previously underutilized site. A combination of uncertainty and adaptive management are incorporated into this park strategy in such a way that the park appears to “emerge”. The “Emergent” Park typically had no specific plan until someone seized this, often, oddly developed property and tailored a very specific plan based on the amenities said “someone” perceived the “park” to possess.

An example is Park Downsview Park (PDP) in Toronto, Ontario. previously Downsview airport, former site of Canadian Forces base Downsview, this site has been largely converted into an urban park. PDP is a self-financing community (no government or tax-payer money), self-owned with a few small partnerships and is declared to be a prototype for sustainable communities. PDP proclaims that the Park is first (in priority) and all other lands exist to support [the park]. It was first brought to attention with a design competition which the Architecture firm, OMA, won and was subsequently rejected. (Czerniak, Julia. Case--Downsview Park Toronto. Munich: Prestel, 2001) My understanding of the “Emergent” Park is that it typically had no specific plan until someone determined this, often, oddly developed property could be a park and tailored a very specific plan based on the amenities said “someone” perceived the “park” to possess. PDP is self-financing (no government or tax-payer money), self-owned with a few small partnerships and is declared to be a prototype for sustainable communities.

Indeed, on the surface the proclamations appear to be accurate. The heavy programming implemented over a pre-determined (prolonged) period of time seems to be proactive.

However, a few things remain unclear with these master-plans: Who are the users? What are the users doing in this place? The renderings portray a diverse population strolling through the property but can people afford to live here? Are outsiders truly welcome, for as I previously mentioned it is self-owned, self-financed… so taxpayers have not paid

12

for the privilege to use the area. These master plans almost levitate in limbo: They have potential to rise to a place which achieves their lofty goals, but how and when?

I am not entirely convinced that this approach is generally appropriate. I believe the designers of certain projects have genuine intentions and perhaps accomplish a significant attempt. However, this process cannot be one, stagnant master plan. It must be adaptable and the designer and client and community must be committed to the long term process, in addition to the short-term results (short-term can be defined as even 5 years’ time) Do designers shy away from this approach because it is difficult? The only “right answer” will ultimately be in evaluating the landscape, over time through trial and through practice (as Ian McHarg says). No static master plan solution will be sufficient.

Many interconnected parts must form a system beyond human design to become part of Mother Nature’s realm PARK AS CURATION: What is the role of the park and what determines its legibility? Author Julia Czerniak (“Speculating on Site,” in Large Parks) left me wondering if one can design a landscape without being prescriptive. New landscapes must, or will be built, but for what purpose? Another author, Adriaan Gueze, believed “the park and greenery have become worn-out clichés.” I understand this statement from the viewpoint of challenging how one designs versus reading the statement as a proponent of the erasure of landscape. The real question is: How can we improve the present typology and how does it evolve? Where does “Accommodation of a plurality of interests” (Civic Realms & Public spaces) come in? No longer are the bourgeois conditioning the commoner for a proper method of behavior in public. Beyond the point of solving 19th century problems and controlling diversity: do we want parks to create a “centering effect?” and proselytize that “this is good for you?” I doubt it. We want to create, spaces of personal discovery and freedom, for users to choose a path based on the context of the place. Or what does the place have to offer that I want to experience?One interesting example of a “Curated” park is Parc De la Vilette in Paris, France. It features Natural and artificial forced together into highly manipulated forms.

13

Figure 1.2 Parc de La Vilette 14

CONCLUSION FROM “PARK AS..” READINGS

The idea of selectively keeping key components of a Park combined with recognizing what might emerge if one allows for place evolution made sense to me. Also, it is important to view the park as a system of moveable parts, not as a single, static site to be designed. If the park can be seen as multi-dimensional and a place of discovery a visitor is more likely to be engaged and feel a sense of challenge. The space will not be static or uninteresting. However, the challenge remains about what to do with historic elements located within a park, no matter how created or designed.

15

#2. WHAT IS A NATIONAL RECREATION AREA? GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA & DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

The delineation of the choice of competition site was based on the previous park readings but also through discussion and consensus. The Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area contained a plurality of interests for the competition team.

However, it was unclear what distinguishes a National Park from a National Recreation Area. Therefore two case studies emerged as relevant comparison to the thesis topic: Gateway National Recreation Area and Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.

These two sites emerged as relevant case studies because of their National Recreation Area status, water resource adjacency and proximity to our studio location in upstate New York. I will briefly discuss these two sites, compare them to the CRNRA and present relevant conclusions.

Gateway National Recreation Area (GNRA) is located in southeastern New York City, New York. Similar to the CRNRA, GNRA it is a stratified site: the three park units are located on Staten Island, Jamaica Bay in Brooklyn & Queens, and in Sandy Hook, New jersey. In total GNRA is made up of 26,000 acres.

Similar to CRNRA, GNRA offers space for hiking, biking, kayaking, bird watching, waterfront interaction and exploration of historic artifacts. There is also a safety issue due to riptides which are a cause for concern each year, This is similar to the Dam release dangers of the CRNRA, which will be discussed later. Different GNRA programming includes: camping, Civil War-era forts, seasonal activities (such crosscountry skiing) and views of New York City.

“Even in New York, the great outdoors is just a subway ride away.” -GNRA, NPS website (http://www.nps.gov/gate)

16

The same cannot be said of the CRNRA. The public transportation system offer many challenges one of which is a number of bus transfers in order to get to a part of the site. Furthermore, GNRA offers activities relevant to the contemporary user: podcasts about the historic sites, a weekly update of “What’s happening this week at Gateway” . CRNRA does have a great facebook page, though. Another feature of the GNRA which the CRNRA could benefit from is the number of events held at the park such as outdoor concerts, theater and maybe even a lecture series could bring a variety of visitors. Cultural events, as well, might be appropriate in certain park locations. simply put: some additional programming and utilization of social networking could greatly benefit the CRNRA. (http://www.nps.gov/gate) Simply updating the CRNRA website would improve the site’s image. GNRA has some simple headings beneath its “History and Culture” page: People, Places, Stories, and collections. CRNRA definitely has enough information to fill those sections. From Native settlements to historic mills to narratives of the Civil War to a collection of antebellum farming artifacts.

In conclusion, I feel the Gateway National recreation Area is an excellent NRA to compare the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area. Both interface with urban environments, offer an escape to nature and provide what NRAs are supposed to provide: recreation opportunities. However, the GNRA can provide some ideas for future programming and to help with technological legibility.

17

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DWGNRA) is located along the Delaware River. Similar to the CRNRA, the GNRA it is an elongated site: the DWGNRA is 40 miles long. In total the DWGNRA is composed of 70,000 acres which extend across two states: New Jersey and Pennsylvania. most notably it contains the 1000 foot-deep Water Gap, a major attraction. (http://www.nps.gov/dewa) Similar to the CRNRA, DWGNRA offers hiking, fishing, some biking, kayaking, waterfront interaction and a long history of human presence. Some additional and different GNRA programming includes: camping, hunting, canoeing (The Chattahoochee River in the CRNRA is not always deep enough), a calm river and the majority of the DWGNRA property is physically connected.

Originally, I thought that the only thing the CRNRA had in common with the DWGNRA was that both are centered on rivers. The CRNRA is stratified and closely bordered by urban and suburban fabric whereas the DWGNRA is almost a completely cohesive unit and remains very natural throughout. However, on closer examination I think the DWGNRA could offer the CRNRA some ideas for future development.

Currently the DWGNRA is able to offer programming for up to 3 days of canoeing and camping. It also contains historic villages and extensive recreations trails. If the CRNRA can incorporate camping areas and continue to expand its boundaries, as is in the current plan, it could start to appeal to those looking for a longer experience.

With the new acquirement of Hyde Farm the park could have a similar “1900s day” to demonstrate antebellum and post-antebellum farming practices as well as other unique practices from that era.

In conclusion, I feel that Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area is a bit more National Park-like than the CRNRA. Yes, it offers the typical recreation activities which help to classify its NRA status however, it also holds a Natural wonder in addition to an encompassed, cohesive land area. I think the CRNRA is still in search of the park-like character. It has the potential to develop that quality, however, land acquisition and new programming will be important steps. (http://www.nps.gov/dewa)

18

After researching these two National Recreation Areas the class found that they both offer some ideas appropriate for the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area. All three are clearly different from other National Parks for many reasons: their form, their heavy emphasis on recreation and their proximity to urban areas, and in some cases metropolitan areas. However, they are still similar to other National Parks in that they celebrate a unique era of our country that will be preserved for the current and future needs of citizens.

Figure 1.3:

ttan nha

Jersey City

Ma

NEW YORK

Left: Gateway National Recreation Area

Ne w

ark

Ba

y

Queens

Frank Charles Memorial Park

Upper Bay

Brooklyn

John F. Kennedy International Airport

Canarsie Pier Verrazano Narrows Bridge

Staten Island Fort Wadsworth

Bergen Beach

Lower Bay

Floyd Bennett Field

Plumb Beach

Hoffman Island

Miller Field

Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge

d Coney Islan

Swinburne Island

Right: Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area

Jacob Riis Park Fort Tilden

Great Kills Park

Staten Island Unit

Breezy Point

(source: www.NPS.gov)

Jamaica Bay Unit Atlantic Ocean

Raritan Bay

Sandy Hook Unit

Fort Hancock Historic District

Park Land Sandy Hook Park Water

Bay

Gateway Legislative Boundary

NEW JERSEY

Highlands

Na

ve

si n k

North

River

Miles 0

1

2

4

19

#3. HOW DOES HISTORY INFORM DESIGN? Literature? (Reference Text and Source of inspiration) At this point in the research there was still a lack of understanding regarding the role of history in a “Modern Park” and in a National Recreation Area. Historical elements had been featured in the previous studies but no relevant anecdote or explanation was discovered to clarify how these features were regarded or interpreted. To understand possible strategies the author consulted a variety of sources for exploring the role of history in contemporary design. They provided different but complementary ideas. These following resources are highlighted because they exhibit an understanding of architectural, landscape and preservation theories. These inclue: SOAK (by Mathur and da Cunha), Learning from Las Vegas (by Robert Venturi), and What Time is This place (by Kevin Lynch).

SOAK by Anu Mathur and Dilip da Cuntha discusses the development of an estuary in a city landscape. The authors explore the relationship between the Mithi River and Mumbai. I saw this as similar to the situation with the Chattahoochee River and Atlanta’s suburban sprawl.

I discovered that boundaries are manmade. They are what we arbitrarily determine. In Mumbai an estuary operates more like a filter (SOAK: pg 07) between the sea and the land than an actual line. It mediates water levels and traditionally was the prime deterrent to flood events. However, as Mumbai has become more and more populated, the river edge has become less and less permeable due to hard boundaries created by settlement patterns. It behooves residents to allow permeation both from the river and to the river. This filter-like effect allows for a careful but intelligent system to take place.

In reality, where the sea meets the land is constantly in flux from tidal flow, storm events and erosion. In a river, typically the flow will meander, resulting in a changing land form over time, a shift in land purposes. However, the Chattahoochee

20

River is unique in that it is one of the few, rare rivers which do not meander. It is situated on the Brevard fault (a hard rock surface) and has not moved for over three hundred years. It is a steady, ancient river in an ever-shifting landscape. Or, to quote the National Park Service: “an ancient river in a modern city”. It is the adjacency to the city of Atlanta, Georgia, that has changed its purpose over time. It is also this adjacency that has given Atlanta such a stable, reliable boundary. The Army Corps of Engineers built a dam which created a lake (Lake Sydney Lanier). Although the dam controls water level change and alleviates flooding, it has also allowed Atlanta to creep closer and closer with rapid population growth.

Presently, the water system no longer needs to act like a filter. However, the CRNRA does. It must allow people in and out of the site, to and from points of interest. While there is no real boundary between people and the river, there is an unseen boundary between the growing urban fabric and the CRNRA. As noted by the author and architect Robert Venturi: Gaining insight from the commonplace is not a new premise. (“looking backward at history and tradition to go forward. Downward to go upward.”) (Learning from Las Vegas: p. 0); He highlights method versus content. The insight to be gained from historical remnants is a sense of how humans interacted with space at another time. Occupying the same space a century or so later is obviously very different. One can never recreate the past. As designers we can recreate or preserve physical relics but we can hardly address economic, political or environmental conditions. We can, however, link the present to the past with more than a signpost or other obvious interventions. Not only do we direct a visitor’s gaze backward but we also encourage them to look forward.

Modern architecture: space is the primary element that separates architecture from painting, sculpture, literature… “…sculptural and pictoral architecture is unacceptable-because space is sacred.” To design a park space one must realize that space is sacred and to design an appropriate park space is to be mindful. In terms of ruins and relics the space which they occupy is valuable as are the remnants themselves. A

21

designer could, in fact, find a way to utilize this space and enhance its value through public interaction. People like to fill space.

A strategy Venturi discusses is looking at the site and changes in Atlanta. One can use this method of studying by applying it directly to the historical timeline.

(Learning From Las Vegas: p 34): American Indians, prehistory - 1838 Settlement, Transportation, & Agricultural Development, 1830-Present The River As A Source Of Energy For Industrial Development, 1830-present Landscape of Conflict, prehistory-present The River and Recreation, 1900-present All of these things created and resulted in physical change on the river as well as a change in usage of the river. What is the physiognomy of a typical National Recreation Area? The character or outward appearance of an NRA? “… architecture depends on its perception of past experience and emotional association…” (Learning from Las Vegas: P.64) This may be contradictory… (such as the duck + decorated sheds of Las Vegas.) However, I think the physical manifestation of the park aesthetic must be mindful of the past. It must acknowledge and perhaps build on the past experiences user may have had in the park, or even the perceived usages of the past (lodges, picnics, etc). The new park aesthetic must also be tied into people’s emotional connection to the park. Memories, beauty and history are some emotion-triggers.

“No artist should go all the way with his own philosophy, translating too literally his theory into his architecture, particularly into any one piece of architecture. That is too dry.” –Robert Venturi “The fixed characteristics restrict the range of possibilities and therefore ease the agony of the design search.” (What Time Is This Place?: 38) Kevin Lynch argues that it is easier to design and plan when there are restriction than when the “situation

22

is completely open.”

These restrictions are often found in the form of landforms, density or within an historic condition. The form is more rich and the contrast more exciting. The Chattahoochee presents many of these design restrictions and encourages creative solutions to existing conditions. There a set-back of 1000’ from the river. The existing structures within the Recreation Area are limited, the visitor center is located within the home of a former Supreme Court judge. I think this makes for a more curious and more layered/ quality of design. To work around and within this shell is to create a dynamic dialog between the past and present that starting from scratch (leveling the site to create a NEW visitor center) could never offer and could never recreate the feeling of tension between the past and present. Simply by using an historic structure in a contemporary setting and for a “modern’ purpose” one can state this connection without the use of overt signage or advertisement. I think the typical response to historic events within the Park district has been to erect a large, detailed sign on the ground of the historic location. By creating a hybrid of past a present structure or more correctly, a fusion of previous physical remnants with current program an implied relationship can evolve. And this is not a subtle implication but an overt and fairly obvious happening. For example: to take the judge’s historic summer home (now the Park Visitor Center) but infuse it with modern park knowledge and even technological communication this very interesting and unique center can be created.

It is important to note that no historic structure must be preserved in a perfect and exact state. The shell of the Visitor building could remain while the interior is retrofitted with walls for art gallery displays (tourist’s photos of the River site, local artists, guest lecturers research, etc.). There could be a digital display inserted into the old fireplace, sometimes displaying a roaring fire and at other time flashing a warning of the impending descent of the rising flood waters. On the exterior there could be an addition or contemporary structure added in close proximity which houses a “library of the future” or “map exploration workshop” area. Possibilities are only limited to the imagination of an architect/planner/ community member.

23

IV: CONCLUSION “It is the familiar connections not all the old physical things that people want to retain, except where those things have a personal connection: their own furniture, the family mementos. One of the problems of the large new suburban communities is how to maintain some continuity of image and association despite the physical and social upheaval to which their inhabitants have been exposed.” (What Time Is This Place?: p 39) Two thoughts here: 1) Regarding “old physical things” my intention is not to take the historical remnants of the site and place them on a pedestal (or some similar method to display the features). I feel a successful design will integrate the items into the fabric of the park in such a way that the history is apparent but ACTIVE. The ancient rock outcroppings could shelter a hiking group, the historic bridges could provide crossings for cyclists during a marathon, the adjacency to a former Civil War battle site could become: an activating moment for design.

2) The interesting thing about this ancient river is its current adjacency to the city of Atlanta. When the city was founded the river was further away from the downtown area but as the city experienced a BOOM in population it has become a border that the city spread out toward in a relatively brief time.

Now the majority of the park land is surrounded by suburbia and opulent houses the wealthy Atlantan society has claimed River adjacency A successful design must incorporate the remnants of the Park’s past and honor not only the surrounding neighborhoods but those without the privilege to walk out their front door to the park. To effectively use this information to make the park a destination will be the objective of the following intervention. In essence, this park belongs to all of Atlantans, and the nation. These are everyone’s remnants, it is their connection to the land and to the past that ties them here.

24

The park is for everyone and the history is collective.

History should be incorporated in a dynamic way, interpreted based on a site-

specific realities. Soak views history and the Mithi as a filter, a changing boundary.

Venturi shows us that history is an important building block for contemporary design and Lynch stresses the importance of time as flowing, never constant.

25

PART II: FINDINGS AND DESIGN INTERVENTION

26

The State of Georgia Counties that border the CRNRA

5 1 2

3

1 Cobb 2 Fulton 3 Dekalb 4 Gwinnett 5 Forsyth

4

Figure 1.3 Map of Georgia and Relevent Counties 27

This image shows public green space in relation to the CRNRA. Also, the Brevard Fault Zone is placed beneath the map.

BALL GROUND

CHEROKEE FORSYTH CANTON

CUMMING

BIG CREEK

BUFORD

ALPHARETTA

FULTON ROSWELL

KENNESAW

DULUTH DALLAS

PAULDING

GWINNETT

SANDY

HIRAM

COBB

LAWRENCEVILLE

SPRINGS SMYRNA SNELLVILLE TUCKER

MABLETON

DECATUR ATLANTA

DEKALB REDAN

COLLEGE PARK

FULTON FAIRBURN

PALMETTO

FOREST PARK

CLAYTON

JONESBORO

Figure 1.5 Site Analysis 28

This image shows how the Metropolitan area of Atlanta grew from 1890 to 1970 to 2001.

Slowly the urban sprawl reached the site.

BALL GROUND

CHEROKEE FORSYTH CANTON

CUMMING

BIG CREEK

BUFORD

ALPHARETTA

FULTON KENNESAW

ROSWELL

DULUTH DALLAS

PAULDING

GWINNETT

SANDY

HIRAM

COBB

LAWRENCEVILLE

SPRINGS SMYRNA SNELLVILLE TUCKER

MABLETON

DECATUR ATLANTA

DEKALB REDAN

COLLEGE PARK

FULTON FAIRBURN

PALMETTO

FOREST PARK

CLAYTON

JONESBORO

N Not to Scale

1890 1970 2001

Figure 1.6 Site Analysis Continued 29

This image shows a compilation of 3 site maps of the CRNRA: 1984, 1993 and 2003. The CRNRA slowly aquired parcels within their jurisdiction.By 2012 many of the outlined areas have been acquired.

1982 1994 2007 2012

Figure 1.7 Site Land Parcel Evolution

30

Ab

ABBO BRID

Lake Sidney Lanier Buford Dam

34

33

32

JONES BRIDGE

Bridge closed

33

9

33

32

32 6 Garrard Landing

33

1

2

o c h ee River

33

(Gwinnett County)

Chattahoochee River Environmental Education Center

32

Jones Bridge Park

34

3

ho

CREEC

8

34

Buford Trout Hatchery

Chatt a

Jones Bridge Shoals

32

Bowmans Island Shoals

McClure Bridge

0

MEDLOCK BRIDGE

7

(City of Roswell)

34

34

7

BOWMANS ISLAND

6

Fish Weir Shoals

ORRS FERRY

5

(Georgia Department of Natural Resources)

4

3

SETTLES BRIDGE

Holcomb Bridge

5

34

Bridge closed

4 32

(Army Corps of Engineers)

8

34

HOLCOMB BRIDGE

34

2

1

34

0

McGINNIS FERRY ROGERS BRIDGE

33

Abbotts Bridge

ABBOTTS BRIDGE VICKERY CREEK

Chattahoochee Nature Center

31

5

31

Riverside Park (City

31 7 of Roswell) 31 6 Chattahoochee River Park

8

Don White Memorial Park

4

31

0

32

1

32

2

3

32

32 6 Garrard Landing 32

Park Headquarters 32

8

McClure Bridge

0

33

Jones Bridge Park

33

1

33

MEDLOCK BRIDGE

7

(City of Roswell)

4 32

5

Holcomb Bridge

HOLCOMB BRIDGE Dunwoody Nature Center

Ri v

4

BRANCH

e

o ho

3

2

he

1

ta

31

4

c

at

JOHNSON FERRY

Ch

31

Paper Mill Ruins

Sope Creek

31

0

3

Hyde Farm

Morgan Falls Park

(Cobb County)

COCHRAN SHOALS

31

2

Morgan Falls Dam

Ri v

8

7

Powers Island

JOHNSON FERRY

Devils Race Course PALISADES Shoals Overlook

30

30

31

COCHRAN SHOALS

4

30

30

30

North

1

9

8

3

2

0

0

5

7

Powers Island

Cochran Shoals

30

c

Paper Mill Ruins

Sope Creek

30 30

o ho

6

Thornton Shoals Long Island Shoals

30

1

Ch

30

Paces Mill

31

at

Cochran Shoals

ta

30

he

e

30

(Fulton County)

Hyde Farm 9

er

30

7

5

Morgan Falls Dam

er

2

33

9

(Gwinnett County)

Chattahoochee River Environmental Education Center

ISLAND FORD

3

32

CREEC

Island Ford Shoals

(Fulton County)

31

32 Bridge closed

Jones Bridge Shoals

9

Morgan Falls Park

Hyde Farm

JONES BRIDGE

(City of Roswell)

31

Information

Hyde Farm

6

9

8

SUWANEE CREEK 33

32

(Cobb County)

33

(City of Roswell)

Allenbrook

31

33

Rogers Bridge (closed)

Waller Park

(Fulton County and City of Roswell)

GOLD BRANCH

33

33

0 0

2 Kilometers

1 1

30

6

2 Miles

Devils Race Course PALISADES Shoals Overlook Thornton Shoals Long Island Shoals

30

5

Figure 1.8 2012 Map of Chattahoochee National Recreation Area (as drawn by Bryan Harrison and Erik jones).

31

Atlanta

Figure 1.9 Urban Heat Map of Atlanta in 1972 (based on American Forests) 32

Atlanta

The shape of the river starts to become apparent as the population increases closer to the river’s edge.

Figure 1.10 Urban Heat Map of Atlanta in 1993 (based on American Forests) 33

2012 2007 1994 1982

1890

1970

2001

Figure 1.11 Parcel Evolution and Atlanta’s Urban Sprawl 34

Map created by author from Census 2010 Resources.

(Source: http://www.socialexplorer.com)

Figure 1.12 Site-Adjacent Population Density 35

V: SITE DESCRIPTION: CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA Located north of Atlanta, the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area is one of twenty National Recreation Areas managed by the National Park Service. To understand the CRNRA one must understand the “CR”. The Chattahoochee River begins at Chattahoochee Gap in Union County, Georgia up in the Blue Ridge Mountains. The Chattahoochee flows, generally, southward until it is forced to turn southwest at the Brevard Fault Zone near Clarksville, Georgia, approximately 90 miles northeast of Atlanta, Georgia. It is the Brevard Fault Zone that essentially “locks” the Chattahoochee River in place, making it one of the oldest and most stable rivers in the world, and most importantly, prevents the river from meandering. This also informs the character of the oldest remaining section of the ancient riverbed the section that is the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area: narrow floodplain and steep upland slopes. (CRNRA: Historic Resource Study. February 2007) The Chattahoochee National Recreation Area (CRNRA) was established on August 15, 1978 when President Jimmy Carter signed the authoritative legislation. This unit was an extension of a former National Park Service management policy from 1964 which called for an extension of the National Park System into perceived “gaps and inadequacies which must be remedied while opportunities still exist.” In other words, the formation of other National Recreation Areas. (CRNRA: Historic Resource Study.)

This 1978 expansion set aside a 48-mile segment of the Chattahoochee River, the boundaries of the CRNRA are recognized as Buford Dam to Peachtree Creek in northwest Atlanta. This includes the parklands along the river. In October 1984 the original legislation was amended to include a 2,000 foot wide corridor of (or 1000 foot buffer on either side of) the river (public Law 98-568). This law authorized Federal support of the CRNRA. By 1999 congressional amendments had increased the total authorized acreage to 10,000 acres. (CRNRA: Historic Resource Study)

36

In many areas along the CRNRA, the Chattahoochee River serves as a county line for the four bordering counties: Forsyth, Gwinnett, Cobb and Fulton. The multilane highway, Georgia 400, opened in 1969, has promoted the suburban sprawl of metropolitan Atlanta that is now rampant along the river corridor east and west of the highway. (CRNRA: Historic Resource Study. February 2007) There are 15 separate NPS units within the authorized boundary of the CRNRA: Bowmans Island, Orrs Ferry, Settles Bridge, McGinnis Ferry, Suwanee Creek, Abbotts Bridge, Medlock bridge, Jones bridge, Holcomb Bridge, Island Ford, Vickery Creek, Gold branch, Johnson Ferry, Cochran Shoals and Palisades. Within these units lie 5,000 acres of Federally owned land, only about half of the 10,000 acres authorized for the park to acquire. Many of the parcels currently withheld from the CRNRA belong to private owners. However, utility companies and local governments also retain easements in many of the Federally owned and privately owned lands. (CRNRA: Historic Resource Study) The Chattahoochee serves the region as a recreation site, historic landscape, infrastructural network, and green corridor that connects Atlanta to three suburban communities and Lake Sidney Lanier. The differences between these four juxtaposed conditions are amplified by the lack of legibility of the site as part of the National Park system. Having become federally managed in the 1970s, the site predates contemporary Atlanta. This designation, prior to Atlanta’s development boom and its proximity to the growing city made it ideal for occupation by relatively affluent suburbanites while those persons with lower incomes remained in the city proper. As a result, the site hosts a series of programmed activities that are place-based, serving the needs of certain user groups while ignoring the needs of others.

The park is a byproduct of efforts by the US Army Corps of Engineers to manage floodwaters to protect Atlanta. Built in the 1950s, the Buford Dam itself has multiple public, infrastructural and revenue-generating programs embedded in its use and operations, which may potentially serve as a precedent for future management of the Recreation Area. The resulting landscape that is the National Recreation Area benefits

37

from a level of control extending 50 miles south to Atlanta from the dam. This site is a very active landscape, existing within flood control systems located at multiple points.

The hydrological landscape is one that is under constant observation, with data reported for water level mapping at the flood control locations and data sent by phone reports to ensure boater safety.

The river and reservoir also serve as the water supply for Atlanta, transforming what is seen as a passive amenity into an active resource. The layered and sometimes conflicting uses of the river and surrounding landscape present an ideal example to explore the role of contemporary National Park sites in urban areas and to create transitions across urban mosaics and gradients.

Given the size of CRNRA the project must be considered at multiple scales and user groups rather than at one specific site. The use of prototypes is also applicable given that the CRNRA is a model for multiple types of National Recreational Centers (disruptive technologies). My intention is to create an intervention(s) that is “real” and can be read at multiple locations.

38

PARTIAL ATLANTA/ CRNRA TIMELINE - See Appendix ii for complete timeline x Prehistoric People

Source: CRNRA Historic Resource Study

x Indian villages x 1830 Industry began along Sope (Soap) Creek (in Cobb County); Hyde Farm founded x 1837 “Terminus” formed (later known as “Atlanta”) x 1838 Cherokee removed (last native settlers) x 1853 First documented commercial industry at Sope Creek x 1861 Civil War begins x 1902 Industrial period of Sope Creek ended x 1904 Jones Bridge completed x 1916 National Park Service Established x 1963 National Recreation Areas established x 1978 President Jimmy Carter signed Bill which created Chattahoochee National Recreation Area Figure 1.13 General Sherman’s Advance-Howard’s (Fourteenth) Corps Crossing the Chattahoochee July 12, 1864.-Sketched by Theodore R. Davis

CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA (CRNRA) FACTS: The river is “locked in place” by the Brevard Fault Zone Entire River course 542 miles to Apalachicola Bay, Florida 10,000 acres: 48 miles of river, 15 land units “String like emeralds” 3.5+ Million visitors annually; $3/day or $25/year passes Uses:

Food/transportation/ power Mills/ factories/ homes Hike/ fish/ relax/ “Shoot the hooch”

Source:CRNRA website 39

1831 Cherokee Nation Map and Adjacnet Counties, Detail from Anthony Finley’s Map of Georgia

1953 USGS Map of Atlanta

1871 Birds eye view of Atlanta

Drawn & Published by A. Ruger, St. Louis, MO.

Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. original scale 1:500,000 U.S. National Atlas, 1970

2001 USGS Map of Atlanta (cropped by author)

Figure 1.14 Collection of Research images 40

VI. SITE INFORMATION: DATA AND POSSIBILITIES A visit to the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area (CRNRA) (through March 19th-23rd) was an integral part of our design process. Prior to the trip to the CRNRA, the class spent a great deal of time analyzing site information that was available. Based on the analysis of the park and surrounding area, each of student generated schematic designs that could be applied. The intention of the visit was to test whether or not these initial schemes were applicable or needed adjustments.

The site visit included visiting various locations and discussion with park staff.

One of the most interesting discoveries about the park was its relationship with its surroundings. The encroachment of suburbia on the park has been extreme and created major identity issues. Visitors must use local suburban roads to access certain park units which often causes tension with local residents. The discontiguous nature of the park also became very apparent. Few of the park’s units are connected to each other requiring travel, usually by personal vehicles.

The visit to the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area provided the class many answers but also raised additional questions regarding the project. The Park Rangers were an incredible resource and provided information ranging from physical knowledge of the lay of the land to a digital and academic cache. I was able to obtain historic and Cultural Resources studies and was introduced to aspects of the site that I had failed to ascertain from my previous research. Examples include an entire mill ruin at Sope Creek, the character of the river bed and just how HUGE the site is.

Based on this week-long visit the class was able to inventory individual sites and the resources for each. Returning to Cornell the class was able to identify which sites were most appropriate for our design strategies. The criteria for narrowing the sites from 15 to 8 was a combination of prioritizing sites that the park rangers had identified and what each student’s research had focused on. By cross referencing the two ideas the class identified the following sites as priority (and most valuable to our projects) as possible locations to express each student’s research priority.

41

Figure 1.14 Site Visit Photos (clockwise): CREEC Center, Island Ford Visitor Center, Cochran Shoals Buford Dam

42

x CREEC/Jones Bridge: The CREEC center and Jones Bridge are part of the same land unit. CREEC is used for educational programs and is connected to the Jones Bridge by trails. Jones Bridge is currently a boat launch and parking area that features half of the original bridge span. x Sope Creek: This site features industrial mill ruins, potential for connectivity to existing trails and lacks a clear entrance. Also includes important creeks. x Vickery Creek: Important to understand watershed and storm-water runoff. x Powers Island/Paces Mill: Socially a unique place for multicultural programming and signage. Also it is the southernmost site and a gateway to the CRNRA. x Suwannee Creek: Important to understanding water quality and stormwater. x Buford Dam: Atlanta’s first source for hydropower and still in use today. x Hyde Farm: Newly acquired vernacular landscape with agricultural potential. x Island Ford Visitor Center: Currently the only visitor center and orientation point on the CRNRA. x The RIVER: It is a challenge to connect the sites as a whole.

43

BOWMANS ISLAND

FISH WEIR

Ancient Native Dwelling

SETTLES BRIDGE 1896 Completed 1950s abandoned

MORGAN FALLS DAM 1904 Atlanta 1st Hydroelectric Power

JONES BRIDGE 1904 Built 1940 abandoned 1940 dismantled

MARIETTA PAPER MILL RUINS 1850-1902

FISH WEIR

AKERS MILL FISH WEIR

Figure 1.15 Symbols of Potential Historic Remnants 44

FISH WEIR

SETTLES BRIDGE 1896 Completed 1950s abandoned Ancient Native Dwelling

MORGAN FALLS DAM 1904 Atlanta 1st Hydroelectric Power

JONES BRIDGE 1904 Built 1940 abandoned 1940 dismantled

FISH WEIR

FISH WEIR

KERS MILL

Figure 1.16 Location Map of Historic Remnants 45

VII. THREE INDIVIDUAL INTERVENTIONS

In selecting sites, I asked What is the physical historic context of a [National

Recreation Area] and what does a dynamic history of the site look like? How can this engage a variety of present-day user groups?

Therefore, I chose three sites where I could highlight historic remnants, proximity to non-park land and lack of development (or lack of a developed master plan).

These sites all contain: ruins, situated on the CRNRA border and they all have the potential to engage beyond the park boundary. They also have the potential to more effectively engage within the Recreation Area, itself.

The sites that I chose are: x Sope Creek: a former industrial mill site x Hyde Farm: a vernacular landscape and farm heritage site x Jones Bridge to Medlock Bridge: National Waterway and structural ruins

In the following section I will discuss the three sites I am addressing including design intentions, interventions and results.

46

Figure 1.17 Map of Historic Remnant Sites 47

sope

Sope Creek

Hyde Farm

Medlock Bridge to Jones Bridge

Figure 1.18 Historic Remnant Site Photos 48

A. SOPE CREEK The Sope Creek site is a unique location due to the following: industrial ruins, accessibility issues, visibility challenges, and proximity to high-end homeowners. The site provides interesting features which can further engage the larger community while providing a buffer between private and public uses.

SITE DESCRIPTION The Sope Creek Site (also spelled Soap Creek) was the former home of the Marietta Paper Company, the second paper mill in the state of Georgia. Located in the town of Marietta, the mill ruin site is situated on the Sope Creek’s northwest border, and on park property between the CRNRA and the surrounding neighborhood. Adjacent properties are a private lot to the northwest, that contains large homes built circa 2007, and a golf course community along the East side of the park, on the other side of the small woods buffer. It is an interesting juxtaposition of wealth, industrial ruin and CRNRA space.

The current site ruins are extensive. Along the West bank of the creek, just below the current bridge, is the former pulp mill ruin from which the Paper mill was supplied. As you cross the bridge eastward you might notice a remnant pier from the former covered bridge, located exactly where the contemporary concrete bridges are now.

Across this bridge is the main site entrance which contains a road blocked by a CRNRA gate. This gate leads to an extensive retaining wall created to support the historic road bed. This piece of infrastructure is an intact piece of history which leads southward, along the east creek bank, past the crumbling stone construction that was a storage shed ruin. The last quarter of the road transitions at the stone foundation of the dam ruins from stone retaining wall to stone raceway piers, left over from the raceway that fed the water-powered mill. This leads to the actual Marietta mill ruin structure which stretches nearly 200’ long and 30’ wide along the creek bank to the Caney Branch, a

49

P

er ap

Mi

ll R

d yC ne Ca

ek re

le y S ibPond

p So

Sope Creek

eC k ree

r ee xC Fo

k

m Colu

rive ns D

!_

Cochran Shoals

Powers Island Po rs we

Trail disconnect

n Isla d

Figure 1.20 Cochran Shoals Unit

!_

!_

CRNRA Trail Water Suburbs Parking

50

ite kS ee Cr pe So

d oa li l R rM pe a P

ek re C y ne a C

ley Sib d Pon

pe So k ee Cr

CRNRA

k ee Cr x Fo

Figure 1.21

C

u ol

m

n

r sD

North, Cochran Shoals Unit

ve r

Sope Creek Historic Site

ive

he e

Ri

51

Figure 1.22 Site Map with Historic Ruins

52

Storage building

View toward Entry

Marietta Paper Mill Ruins

Rock Outcropping

Raceway Ruins

Figure 1.23 Sope Creek Site Photos 53

small stream. East of the road bed and somewhat raised are a Boiler room and oil room ruins. Looking south again, across Caney Branch, one can see wall ruins and the deteriorating office ruins, partially covered in vegetation.

Existing vegetation has been previously documented in the Sope Creek Cultural Landscape Report of the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area. Also listed is the temperate plant community composed of: white oak, red oak, yellow poplars, beech, river birch, sycamore, red maple, dogwood, ironwood, hornbeam, holly, ash, sourwood, black gum, magnolia, hickory, and loblolly pine. The oldest trees along the creek include mature oaks, poplar and loblolly. some troublesome and exotic species includes the Princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), poison ivy (Taxicodendron radicans) and some additional invasive vines. (Byrd:Sope Creek Cultural Landscape Report 2009).

One of the biggest challenges to the National Park Service is the bordering neighborhood of wealthy homeowners which border the park. The reality of these expensive properties presents an issue regarding park entrance visibility and incorporation of common property. Often a visitor experiences an unwelcoming climate when searching for park entrances. Private land owners are in very close proximity and often entrances are not easily accessible. A solution to this situation would include mutual agreements on an acceptable park entrance. Sope Creek is in a unique location for such an intervention. This solution would cause no discomfort for nearby homeowners and would provide users with a more inviting entrance. A buffer would also alleviate concerns of homeowners.

No parking currently exists, except for a couple of spaces for CRNRA vehicles.

However, the head of the ruin’s trail is directly across the creek from an existing network of park trails. This Paper mill is isolated from this network, but could provide an exciting and engaging gateway to the National Recreation area, as well as facilitate the private-to-public space transition.

54

Analyzing information from the site visit, I determined where current circulation existed, current obstacles and highlighted current opportunities. The next step was to create diagrams highlighting optimal circulation suggestions, possible new programming and phased park growth. Thorough photo documentation combined with physical experience of the site enhanced my understanding of how to move through the space. These analyses also identified current limitations of the CRNRA. These limitations include: a dated and obstructed entrance, which gives the impression that the site is poorly maintained and unwelcoming to visitors. Lack of connectivity is another issue. The site does not physically connect to the adjacent CRNRA trail system. The vehicular bridge which spans Sope Creek does not have a designated pedestrian crossing and is unattractive. Other issues include the presence of poison ivy and general lack of site programming. Furthermore, signage does not exist for orienting visitors. There is a sign in front of the ruins that says “Area closed to public: no climbing on or entering historic mill ruins.” This sign is located within the old Storage building ruins. A second sign exists at the start of the trail that says “Do not block gate.” Parking is prohibited at the trail entrance.

55

Google

Google

Figure 1.24 Photos of Site Entry 56

INTERVENTION One of the most important issues with the site is the lack of connectivity to the rest of the Park’s trail system. I feel as though this ruinous site is a missing link to the current trail system. A simple pedestrian crossing near the current bridge on Paper Mill road would be a throwback to the covered bridge located previously on the current bridge site. A second crossing closer to the ruin, possibly near the dam remnants, would be a logical extension to close a loop. Thus, the trail is extended but requires no new parking, which is not possible given the limited space at the head of the trail.

To further support my claim for a contemporary “covered” bridge the Atlanta Journal once said of the area: “Sope Creek, particularly in the springtime, is a place of unusual beauty. A quaint old covered bridge spans the stream just below where the log dam used to be.

The stream is strewn with great boulders and the water dashes over these in a series of cascades, causing such masses of foam that they look like soapsuds.” (Atlanta Journal, 1933) I think the best approach to creating the pedestrian bridge would be to create it adjacent to the current concrete bridge on the south side. While this placement might suggest blocking one of the best views I think the use of a steel material to create an open structure would allow for a transparency to the bridge. it would evoke the traditional form of the historic covered bridge but in a contemporary manner. I imagine it somewhat similar to Delftse Poort by Cor Kraat or The Franklin house by Robert Venturi. Both are considered “ghost structures” as they do not recreate the structures they replicate verbatim but rather give the essence of what may have existed.

Furthermore, I think the aesthetic of the intervention should enhance the ruinous state of the mill and road. Installing a more permanent stone dust-like material which follows the historic cart-tracks of the road would provide a pre-determined path for the visitor. Planting a softer variety of grass down the middle and on the sides of

57

the trail would create the same aesthetic and the feel of an overgrown road. To prevent cars from entering at the top of the trail, simple stone columns could be constructed which would delineate an entrance. Or perhaps, a removable barrier. Regardless, only emergency vehicles should have access.

The Storage building and Paper mill ruin have a great deal potential. The storage building is a great platform for viewing the creek and to picnic. A small staircase would allow safe access as well as control over where pedestrians are directed to walk.

Perhaps some simple plantings would enhance the natural beauty of the area.

For the Marietta Paper Mill ruin, I propose a sunken garden concept that incorporates green roof technology to both protect the ruin from further degradation and for easier maintenance. There are a number of “room” with intact exterior walls. There are even doorways which could provide for framed entrances and exits to the garden complex. I believe repairing current breaks in the foundation with mortar and stone patching of a slightly different color will juxtapose the historic with the new. (seefigure 1.23) In areas with broken and crumbling tops of walls, I think to repair them with this new aesthetic will make the space safer and appealing.

Plant species I would consider are native Georgian shrubs, perennials and grasses (see existing species list). Anything native and small will have less maintenance associated with it as well as lower water requirements. It would be simple to create a water drainage channel that doubles as a water feature through the garden. There is both an entry point (on the south side of the ruin) and an exit point on the North side of the ruin that would be appropriate. (see figure 1.21) The mill grounds already slope from up-creek to down-creek. Also, with the re-instatement of the raceway (as a trail) a smaller, day lit water feature could potentially run along the raceway, promoting the knowledge of the olden tradition of water-powered mills. Furthermore, this water feature could be used to irrigate the garden or to at least provide an interesting water feature.

Another phase would be to replace the wooden posts protecting the ruin with a

58

more permanent fence system that is also pervious to viewing. I would consider a cable fence or other wood fencing system.

I wish to structure the gardens in such a way that there is a possibility for picnicking and group gathering. This would support my secondary idea for a place for events. Ideas include; a film festival which projects images onto the two-story remnant wall structures, cafe space, wedding photo shoots, theater, art classes and others.

Adding a clear entrance in addition to connecting the residential sidewalk to the park trail nearby would encourage neighbors to become more engaged in the park..

This design plan I propose is intended to give dignity and aesthetic appeal and make the Park community asset. I would imagine a clearly marked trail, doggie bags and clean, clear trails would increase its perceived value to the nearby community. I would hope that it became an extension of the community. Instead of turning their backs on a “public” park perhaps residents will want to spend time there.

Additionally there is room for additional 3-4 parking spaces. The presence of a few cars would signify that this is not a populous landscape, or an area for large groups but a small parking lot for individuals and small groups. For larger events I propose for groups to “hike to” the destination or use a shuttle to be created from the beginning of the Sope Creek trails to this historic mill ruin.

Additional possibilities include a seasonal cafe within the old storage building or perhaps within the Mill ruin itself. I think logistics would enable a single truck to deliver supplies to either location. It is more a matter to providing the infrastructure.

Additionally, I imagined some more art-like spaces throughout the site that speak to earlier history. Stands of forest in manicured plots (a la Mattress Factory’s garden) and some sort of Native American site intervention involving the rock outcropping they likely used for shelter during hunting trips. These might spark folks’ curiosity through an incongruous (to their perception) installation. A visitor might be walking along a seemingly typical park path and find a stand of pine trees in an open field. Or perhaps beneath the rock outcroppings would be a campfire encased in bronze.

59

d oa R l il rM e ian p r t a s P de Pe dge w bri Ne

Existing Woods

w g Ne rkin Pa

New Path, Plantings & Benches

PE

SO

Tr ail

ric sto Hi rail w Ne ad T Ro

CR NR A

EEK

CR

Pulp Mill Ruins

Figure 1.25 Master Plan of Site Entry 60

ic or st l Hi ai w Tr Ne ad Ro

n ui yR wa ce Ra

ry da un Bo

w Ne

A NR CR

Existing Woods

ail Tr

New Path, Plantings & Benches

PE

SO K EE

CR

EK

EY

N CA

E CR

A NR CR l ai Tr

Figure 1.26 Master Plan of Site Ruins 61

62

Figure 1.27 Rendering of New Bridge

Figure 1.28 Rendering of New Trail 63

Figure 1.29 Rendering of Raceway Trail 64

65

Figure 1.30 Rendering of Ruin Potential

CONCLUSION The Soap Creek Site has numerous possibilities for enhancement. The ruins are quite intact and the trail unfolds the various site components in such a way that a narrative is easy to imagine. I hoped to find a way to re-imagine the existing remnants with their inherent properties in mind. However, these materials can be used in a present-day version of themselves. A version that still preserves the qualities that make these things so unique but in a less than literal way. A covered bridge that helps one cross but also makes one stop and think about what it is and why it might be there. A road-like trail that evokes imagery of the past and a green-roof factory that produces memories.

66

B. HYDE FARM This is another unique CRNRA location and this site was chosen due to the following features: it is recently acquired land, the CRNRA is in a partnership with Cobb County for this site, the site’s main features are a vernacular landscape (a farm with antebellum origins), and there exists great potential for new programming and connectivity.

Connectivity to the community and to the CRNRA as a whole.

67

Figure 1.31 Hyde Farm Existing Site Plan

68

Approx. Tree Line

Figure 1.32 Hyde Farm Exisitng Plan

Entry Gate

end of public road

road abandoned

north chicken house

south chicken house 1/3 mile to George Power house

brood house well house

Approx. Tree Line

goat house ruins

residence

shuck house machine shop/ garage

gear house corn crib barn

69

Figure 1.33 Hyde Farm Site Photos 70

SITE DESCRIPTION Hyde Farm is a 95-acre parcel of land recently acquired by the CRNRA through the Trust for Public land. This parcel is located just above the Morgan Falls Dam, on the Northwest side of the Chattahoochee River and It is the Northernmost tip of the Johnson Ferry Unit which is situated in Cobb County. Most importantly the site contains a historic farm and collection of historic buildings.

The site was originally purchased by Joseph and Isabella Power. The farm itself has origins dating from the 1830s, as does the adjacent George Power House. Joseph Power built a log house on a hilltop on the northwest side of the river near where the family operated a ferry (starting in 1832) which was located just above the current Morgan Falls Dam. They eventually acquired 1,300 acres which is included the current parcel between Willeo Creek and Johnson Ferry Road. Three of Power’s sons and his daughter established farms near their parents. Around 1840 Power’s son James Cooper Power built the current log cabin for his new wife, Rosa Dodd Austin and it is he and their children who originally developed Hyde Farm before the Civil War. (CRNRA Historic Resource Study:76)

In 1874 James Hyde, a Civil War veteran, started sharecropping on the Power Farm. After James Power died in 1901, James Hyde’s son Jesse Hyde gained the title to the old James Power homestead (135 acres) and farmed the land until he died in 1972. His sons carried on the legacy using mule-drawn plows, a very traditional approach. The Hyde brother, J.C. and Buck, were famous for their fresh produce truck from which they would sell produce at the Bethel Methodist Church near Power’s Ferry. Buck died in 1991 and J.C. kept farming until he died in March 2004. contains a historic site which Cobb County earmarked $720,000 in grant funds to the Trust for Public Land in order to acquire the 95-acre parcel as well as transfer ownership to the National Park service. There currently exists a strange co-ownership: Cobb county owns the land but the CRNRA owns all of the artifacts which it has systematically removed, cataloged and has in its possession. (CRNRA Historic Resource Study:77)

71

The site is currently a challenge to access. There is an entrance through the suburban community on Lower Roswell Road, to the north, that leads to Hyde Road: a paved public road, roughly three-quarter-mile long. This road leads through the old agriculture fields of the site to the collections of buildings make up the historic farmstead. If you continue from Hyde Road onto the private dirt road southward the George Power House is a 1.3 mile south of the site.

The original log home was built by the James Power in 1840 and is the singlepen, end-gabled core of the current L-shaped residence. Some notable features of the original cabin are stacked stone piers which support hewn oak sills and a fieldstone chimney, which is probably original. Jesse Hyde built a one-room, wood-framed addition at its west end in 1925 that included a fieldstone chimney. Shortly after completion he added a small ell at the rear that served as an indoor kitchen. The three additions are very apparent from their exterior finish (in order of construction): vertical board-and-batten siding, beveled siding and clapboard siding. A few contemporary features include a recently enclosed porch and a ramp entry on the north side.

There are at least nine outbuildings situated on the gently-sloping terrain of the site, surrounding the main house from Southwest to north.. These buildings include (from oldest to most modern): corncrib (1850), Gear house (1900); The barn (1910); Well house (early 20th c.); Shuck Shed (early 20th c.); Machine Shop/Garage (1945); chicken Houses (1950). Furthermore, along the plateau southwest and north of the house are the formerly cultivated fields, still soil-rich and open. (CRNRA Historic Resource Study:78-79)

INTERVENTION The first thing to note about this property is the extensive collection across multiple eras of a settlers farmstead and physical evidence of the evolution of a small farmstead. The Hyde Farm site shows the evolution of a farming settlement pattern that contains features that are both antebellum and post-antebellum and specific to the upper Georgia Piedmont. It is currently eligible for the National Register as an his-

72

toric district. (Historic Resource Study: 2009: 79) This is a unique property that it exhibits farming practices throughout the late 19th century, early 20th century and was preserved well into the present. Furthermore, despite its strange location within the suburban fabric, it has a calming feeling of quiet isolation from the modern hustle and bustle.

I believe some active programming that involved education of historic farm practices would be both beneficial to preserving the story of the site bit also an interactive way to engage visitors of all ages. To take a leaf from Delaware Water Gap NRA which has historic villages that volunteers re-enact 19th century life, I think a recurring “Period demonstration” would be popular. Local volunteers, possibly with “Friends of Hyde Farm”, could dress in costume and demonstrate farm activities and other activities of that era: mule-plowing, corn-shucking, vegetable tending, period-appropriate games.

However, I think a day camp that encouraged various citizens, children and even agriculture university students to come and practice agriculture could be a unique program the CRNRA could offer. If students and community members alike could have a hand in producing urban agriculture, maybe even selling produce from the farm, it could give them a sense of stewardship and craftsmanship. Agriculture students could re-visit older farming practices first hand, and bring historical classroom studies to life in an outdoor classroom. Perhaps, community members, in trade for their volunteer efforts, could have a small share of fresh vegetables and fruit from just down the street?

CONCLUSION This farmstead can give the CRNRA the opportunity to offer a National Park Service activity that is common at other sites but with a modern-day benefit: potential for education, engaging the larger community, possible historic reenactment and overall betterment of a community through the CRNRA’s integrity. More simply put: this is a bridge between the adjacent community and the CRNRA.

73

74

Figure 1.34 Hyde Farm Rendering 1 & 2

75

Figure 1.35 Hyde Farm Rendering 3 & 4

C. JONES BRIDGE TO MEDLOCK BRIDGE This site was selected based on the following identifying features: this is simultaneously a popular and understated waterway, there is opportunity to communicate recreation possibilities, there are conspicuous structural ruins of the Jones Bridge, and direct adjacency to a city park and high-end property. The former presents both a challenge and opportunity for community engagement. It is a unique location for recreation, gathering and landing. Furthermore, it is an opportunity to explore what a National Water Trail means to the CRNRA SITE DESCRIPTION This is a difficult site to describe. I wanted to take advantage of the Park’s new status as the First National Waterway Trail and therefore the site includes a centrallylocated, two and half mile stretch of the river: from mile marker 331 to 329.5. When we visited the site we had the privilege of taking a series of raft trips from various popular and lesser known stretches of the river. The section that impacted me the most was the ride from Medlock Bridge westward to Jones Bridge.

This stretch of the river is unique because between these two sites none of the property is owned by the CRNRA on either side of the river. Except for the 50 foot setback, which is partially occupied by brush and power company right-of-ways, the property on either side of the river is private residential. The park has the ability to acquire this land if the owner choose to sell to the parcel willingly and they do not use their “eminent domain” status. Therefore, the property tends to pass from owner to owner as this is considered prime real estate on the river. Furthermore, CRNRA visitors do not always feel they can use the river in these areas due to the private nature of the property, not knowing that they are within full right and park boundary on the river itself.

76

Medlock Bridge Unit to Jones Bridge Unit Google-based map (made by author)

Jones Bridge

Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Atlanta, Georgia

MEDLOCK BRIDGE

Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Atlanta, GA

Revised January 1996

Jones Bridge Ruins

rkwa y e Pa

Department of the Interior

rn C

htre

Ma lve

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

re

Pea c

ek

LEGEND EASY TRAIL

Barnwell Road

… "

Gated

Ý " ) ! ( :

Road

X

[

DIFFICULT TRAIL

Trail

PARKING

Park Entrance

PICNIC AREA

Boardwalk

BOAT LAUNCH

Park Boundary

PARK BOUNDARY

Trail Marker Streams

NO BIKES ON TRAIL

Roads

PETS ON LEASH

AHOOCHEE RIV CHATT ER

MODERATE TRAIL

Legend

Viewing Area Restrooms 0

Boat Ramp

4 0

0.125

0.25

You may obtain a copy of this map by visiting website: 0.5 Miles www.nps.gov/chat

1/8 scale in miles

1/4

Amphitheatre Parking Picnic Tables Canoe Ramp

141

N

Information

E

W S

Revised November 2006

Figure 1.36 Medlock Bridge Unit to Jones Bridge Unit Existing CRNRA Site Maps (http://www.nps.gov/chat/planyourvisit/maps.htm) 77

A brief history of Jones Bridge includes John F. Martin who acquired 2,500 acres in 1819 and established a ferry to accommodate (or to take advantage of) the increase in river crossing traffic due to the 1832 “gold lottery” of former Cherokee lands. His son-in-law inherited the lands and re-named the ferry Jones Ferry after himself (George H. Jones). His family operated the ferry until Gwinnett and Fulton Counties built a toll bridge in 1904 and shared expenses until the Great Depression when a number of factors, including the free state bridge upstream, led to disuse.

Then, the Gwinnet County half of the bridge was removed during World War II and the wood decking disappeared. The NPS manages and own the only roadway leading to the bridge as well as the land beneath the bridge remnant. However, the bridge structure belongs to Fulton County. (CRNRA Historic Resource Study:73) Medlock Bridge Unit formerly had a bridge many years ago but currently offers no real historic significance. It is, however, a small parcel of only 43 acres. Its primary purpose is as a boat launch for fisherman and it is an exit ramp for river rafters who put in at Abbotts bridge. It does offer picnic space, easy to moderate woodland trails and parking. Basically, it is a neutral, nondescript starting point.

When the class rode this stretch of the river Spring had just begun, much of the brush and foliage was budding. Even with the small amount of leaves filling in I could see that, in Spring and Summer, a river user can barely see these properties and actually does feel as though he or she in a natural-esque, scenic waterway. The Park Ranger mentioned that, although the property owners prize the land because it is adjacent to the river, rarely does a property owner actually use the River. That is good for visitors.

Furthermore, the sense of arrival at the Jones Bridge Unit is due to the Jones Bridge ruin. Journeying from Medlock southward it is with a sense of wonder that one rounds the bend and sees the Jones Bridge remnant unfold. It is a striking image. However, Jones Bridge itself presents the unique challenge of being directly adjacent to two prominent homes. Any development of the bridge itself is within the sight line of their backyard views.

78

Medlock bridge

River View

Jones Bridge

Jones Bridge’s neighbors

Schoals below Jones Bridge unit

Figure 1.37 Medlock Bridge Unit to Jones Bridge Unit Site Photos 79

INTERVENTION This stretch of river is a fantastic opportunity to work with the new National Water Trail status. If the CRNRA could portray this particular stretch of river as a unique destination point for individual and small group kayakers or rafters I think they would be enchanted. If the Rangers and the program directors could put more focus into the intimate and welcoming experience of this stretch of river it could reduce stigma of exclusitivity. Also, to create a destination point at Jones bridge unit, which is balanced by the Medlock Bridge starting point would give this stretch of river cohesion.

As I mentioned, the foliage in this area creates s scenic, sheltered and quiet buffer zone between the CRNRA user and the private land owner. To initiate this discovery the park could offer some introductory ranger-led expeditions. The rangers could point out wildlife and help the user to enjoy the space all the while leading to the Jones Bridge Unit.

Without any additional effort, the Jones Bridge remnant span creates a pull towards it. people are naturally curious and want to get close to the structure. however, there is currently a lack of boat pull-out infrastructure. There are some dilapidated stone steps that could be reinforced. That would be a simple fix but more could be done. I think creating a platform beneath the existing structure would give boaters both a place to disembark but also an area to relax and enjoy the curious structure.

The structure itself is a bit more difficult to program. The CRNRA does not actually own the structure, but only the land beneath it. They would need to negotiate with Fulton County and potentially convince them of a beneficial usage for the structure. This usage would need to preserve the integrity of the bridge but also be able to respond to the changing desires of its user population. Therefore, it is evolving the structure, without erasing any historic significance. A few ideas I have imagined for this structure are:

80

-an extension of the swimming platform -a seasonal classroom -a CRNRA event hall -temporary office space I feel as though the latter three ideas could potentially generate a small amount of revenue. Perhaps, even the privileged neighbors would see the benefits of borrowing the space. Events would be made unique and unforgettable by hovering over the Chattahoochee River. I think this would also offer an opportunity to update the current infrastructure of the Jones Bridge Unit. The current handicap ramp could be incorporated into this new structure renovation going two directions: up to the bridge and down to the water. it would all be tucked behind the Jones Bridge and open back up the hillside that is currently occupied by the existing ramp.

I am not entirely certain this fluid space should be developed. I think beyond the renovation of the boat launch and handicap structure: the bridge could be left as an evocotive ruinous structure. The steel spans of the “camel-back” through-truss design were popular in the era which it was built (late 19th century through mid-20th century).

The design is unique in part from its polygonal top chord with five slopes. I imagine this as an active area of exploration with the ruin as both an arrival point and a curious backdrop. This could be a great end to a river journey and potentially a wonderful place to spend a lengthy amount of time.

CONCLUSION National Water Trail status is an important achievement for the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area. Finding ways to enhance CRNRA users experience of the water seems paramount. I think a large step in that journey is to raise awareness of underutilized stretches of the river, such as Medlock bridge unit to Jones Bridge unit.

In this case, and in many other, historic resources offer the chance to tie one unit into

81

the other, and to connect a stretch of park otherwise perceived as inaccessible disconnected from one another. The Jones Bridge Unit site is important to the integrity of the CRNRA. It contains a historic resource that helps to pronounce and to represent an evolution of time within the CRNRA. What was once a ford became a ferry, the ferry became a bridge and then the bridge became obsolete. However, the structure remained as a testament to 19th century craftsmanship and in spite of changing site uses remains important to the character of the site. I strived to make this new experience based on the context of the site and based on current user needs.

CONCLUSION FOR THREE INTERVENTIONS This section has discussed the delineation the three study sites based on their physical and historical context within the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area. The sites that I chose were indicitive of different conditions: x Sope Creek: a former industrial mill site and future community garden, historical feature along the trail system and unique entry to the CRNRA. x Hyde Farm: a vernacular landscape and farm heritage site and future opportunity for experiential learning. x Jones Bridge to Medlock Bridge: Enforcing the National Waterway and structural ruins by highlighting their connectivity through the CRNRA. The history of the sites was made dynamic by leveraging the National Recreation Area status against the historical context. the design manifested from considering the users needs, the potential to engage additional user groups and through utilizing site features in an adaptive, contemporary design strategy. This was intended to engage present-day user groups by being mindful, observant and respectful of past, present and future.

82

Figure 1.38 Final Chosen Site Renderings 83

VIII: CONCLUSION This thesis aimed to explore cultural and historical resources and to leverage them against the “National Recreation Area” status of the CRNRA. The three sites were chosen because they exhibit a variety of ways to address the competition as a part of a larger design strategy. Therefore, from the analysis and interventions discussed in this thesis a model will be proposed based on different typologies of historic remnants.

The works I read for my individual research were written by designers and I felt they helped me to draw conclusions about my role as a designer for landscapes with historic remnants. I did not feel as through my pre-thesis seminar reading addressed history so much as they helped me to understand different types of parks and contemporary needs that parks must address. I took this idea of “typologies” to heart, however, when addressing the CRNRA ruins. Not all ruins are created equal, rather different types of ruins offer different opportunities for programming and design.

Furthermore, I think National Recreation Areas are clearly different from other National Parks for many reasons: their form, their heavy emphasis on recreation and their proximity to urban areas, and in some case metropolitan areas. However, they are still similar to other National Parks in that they celebrate a unique part of our country that must and will be preserved for the current and future needs of our citizens.

But what is a designer’s role with historic components in a landscape?. My conclusion after reading this collection of text is that history should be incorporated in a dynamic way, interpreted based on a site-specific basis. Soak views history and the Mithi as a filter, a changing boundary. Venturi shows us that history is an important building block for contemporary design and Lynch stresses the importance of time as flowing.

“How will National Parks be interpreted in the future?” I think utilizing historical remnants is more than merely beautifying a crumbling piece of history. By investing in this infrastructure in a subtle but intentional manner it creates a link between

84

the past and the future through the lens of the present. Creating a purpose, or perhaps creating a contemporary reason for an historic piece makes it relevant. It makes an interesting piece of the past appealing to people now. Otherwise they may have overlooked the site, considered it a waste site or a site that is untouchable. Now someone at the CRNRA can inhabit, engage and engender to the future this unique piece of National Recreation Area and Atlanta history.

I strived to make this new experience based on the context of the site and reimagined based on current user needs. I wanted to increase the perceived value of the National Water Trail honorific. I wanted to create a bridge between the adjacent community and the CRNRA. I hoped to find a way to re-imagine the existing remnants with their inherent properties in mind: a present-day adaptation of themselves. An alteration that still preserves the qualities that make these things so unique but in a less than literal way.

This thesis aimed to blur the line between the perceived boundary between the history of the park and the contemporary needs of the user: in favor of a landscape integrated with its relics of history. The CRNRA is more than the land which the NPS owns: it is also a platform to interpret the rich culture suspended within its boundaries. The park builds the platform then extends an offer for people to share its resources and experience the amenities.

Not all three of the sites address these hopes on the same level. Sope Creek really highlights the industrial remnants and historical narrative, Hyde Farm enhances accessibility to a vernacular Landscape and the cultural narrative; and Medlock to Jones Bridge explores the National Water Trail and recreation possibilities tied to historic place-making. By distinguishing these elements within the CRNRA the aim was to make visible and accessible a variety of programs for current users to feel they can explore. No longer are the physical remnants frozen in a specific moment in time but they respond to the changing desires of the CRNRA user population which is constantly evolving. Multiple periods of time and types of uses have been overlapped with the

85

intention to create a multi-dimensional, dynamic landscape.

The three typologies that emerged from this study were based on the different ruins found on the CRNRA. The ruins chosen for this study were: industrial ruins, vernacular ruins and ruins out of the CRNRA’s jurisdiction. Other types of ruins that exist on the CRNRA are archeological ruins which this thesis did not address.

Each typology dictated, through its inherent properties, what approach the designer should take. The industrial ruins of Sope Creek were remarkably intact and had a lot of aesthetic and structural value. The raw structure of the ruin provided space for programming. The infrastructure allowed for the ruins to be inhabited and utilized in a contemporary manner: they could support a sunken garden green-roof-system and the existing pathways from the historic road provided pre-determined trail space. by looking at was already there the designer is able to enhance what is existing. By simply asking: “what does the visitor need?” one is able to deduce plausible programming.

Hyde Farm, one of the CRNRA’s two vernacular landscapes, was really a rarity. It was a completely intact farmstead that chronicled, within its remaining structures, the evolution of a small farmstead from antebellum times to present. typically a vernacular landscape offers opportunity for cultural as well as historical education, this site offers the opportunity for the present and future. Not only can one look backwards but the farmstead could be used functionally today and for tomorrow. for other NPS and NRA sites the vernacular landscape, in whatever state of completion, offers an opportunity for education. however, the education could be hands-on and use the vernacular site as a vessel to teach. Simply put: if it was a farm, let them farm. find a way to engage visitors in the past lives of those who shaped and lived in the landscape and try to understand the cultural character.

The final site, Jones bridge, also presents a unique opportunity: to leave the ruin as it is. This is a deceptive phrase to “leave it as it is” because, in reality, a great deal of maintenance is required to prevent the ruin from crumbling away. however, that is also

86

a viable option: to do absolutely nothing and watch the natural decay of the structure.

In the case of Jones bridge the industrial ruin of the remaining span of the bridge is not on CRNRA property. Rather, the CRNRA owns the property surrounding the foundation of Jones Bridge and Fulton county owns the structure itself. I think it is acceptable to leave some ruins as ruins. Not every ruin must be utilized or enhanced to be of value. In this case, the remaining span of the bridge is evocative and interesting just as it is.

Therefore, I propose a gradation of intervention: High Medium and Low. A high level of intervention would be highly structured program with specific intention for users and facilitation by the CRNRA. Example: Hyde Farm. Medium level of intervention would be structured programming for the site but no additional facilitation of activities for users. At Sope Creek users are free to wander around and explore the ruins on their own. A low level of intervention would be to merely highlight a ruin and provide some basic intentions for the site. Jones Bridge is a site for pure discovery and little structured programming beyond an improved boat launch.

This proposed gradation can be applied throughout the CRNRA sites and furthermore, can be applied to other National Park Service sites. If the NPS can categorize its historic resources and identify under-utilized sites, they can further realize each individual park’s potential. The issue still remains that the National Park Service has a broad spectrum of typologies to define and must establish the hierarchy based on what typologies are most important to the National Park Service mission and goals.

This thesis has covered a few key typologies but more do exist (such as archeological ruins). What may occur in the future is a better understanding of which of the NPS’s historical features best serve its contemporary audience and their continued needs and interests within the National Park Service. In order to best explore the cultural and historical resources within the NPS, they must continue to blur the line of the perceived boundary between the history of the park and the contemporary needs of the users.

87

Appendix i Disruptive Technologies: The Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area as National Park Model

Studio Thesis Over the course of the past fifteen years public parks have garnered increasing interest by design professionals.

This can be attributed to the tangible impacts of rapid development that has manifested itself through economic opportunities in the form of public, private and shared landscape-scaled initiatives. Despite growing interest surrounding large parks in particular, the National Parks of America have been overlooked and in some cases are in jeopardy of losing relevance to the contemporary American public. As an example, during the current economic decline, the parks system has seen a decrease in overall attendance. This is inconsistent with their conventional model, which shows that attendance increases during times of economic downturn.

Socially and economically, the development of open space has resulted in unique partnerships, spatial hybrids and design strategies that leverage time as well as context. Contemporary parks have developed in parallel with the transformation of ecological thought from a science that embraces steady state logic to one that accepts change as an integral part of ecological fitness. Typically applied within urban contexts, these new design frameworks such as landscape and ecological urbanism elevate open space to the level of importance of the architectural object with respect to both spatial and performative qualities.

It is important to note that these contemporary conceptions of landscape and urbanism build on the foundation of significantly older agendas attempting to describe ecological sustainability. These ideas exemplify an evolving land ethic born out of the mid 20th century writings of visionaries such as Aldo Leopold and Rachel Carson, and were concerned with the protection of natural areas and wildlife for the benefit of people. The core principles of the National Park Service were established in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with a similar set of values. This approach to treating the American Landscape as something that requires protection has become an almost sacrosanct part of the National Park Service mission, and continues to be a theme central to the National Parks’ role as a public amenity. However, this strategy is not in alignment with many aspects of contemporary park practices, social attitudes towards sustainability and the federal park system, as well as realities of financial operations, nor does it address many of the sites acquired by the National Park Service during the last 40 years.

Arguably, the National Recreation Areas are the most problematic of the National Parks sites. Typically these sites embody the Park principals of engagement and expansion, but do not visibly support sustainability, research, and reverence for place. “Reverence” in particular demonstrates the disconnect between the intended role of the National Park Service and the public’s perceived role of recreation areas. This asynchronous relationship of a park site relative to a park paradigm is demonstrated in sites such as the Presidio of San Francisco, Gateway National Recreation Area in New York and the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, near Atlanta, Georgia. All three of these sites exhibit urban adjacencies, operational issues, site development patterns, and public usage that would be more in alignment with contemporary large parks than with the historic mission statement of the National Park Service.

Therefore, understanding the historic uses and contemporary imperatives of the National Recreation Area including sustainability, economic viability, regional demographics, user groups, materiality and network legibility is of value to the entire system as it presents an opportunity to create landscapes that engage the public in a dynamic manner. Our research and design process will investigate the following questions: “What is a National Park today?”

“What distinguishes a National Park from a National Recreation Area?” and “How will National Parks be interpreted in the future?” Through this investigation we will address the needs of present and future generations.

Most importantly, we will consider the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area as a test bed to address and update the core values and initiatives of the Parks Service through strategies that are designed to enhance future site operations, land management, and planning while maintaining active public interfaces. We seek to create a dynamic model, or set of adaptable rules that can be used in a variety of contexts and settings to create both relevant and successful parks.

Van Alen Parks for the People | Cornell Landscape Architecture Thesis Studio Spring 2012 Page 1 1 November 2011

88

Therefore, we will not approach the park as an object, but as a dynamic system with multiple connections and networks. We will address the park at multiple scales both in its surrounding region and beyond. We will consider the park not as an amenity but as disruptive technology. Typically used to describe innovative business models or products, disruptive technologies are those that create landscapes with emergent social and economic benefits.

Relative to the National Recreation Areas, the term is applied to describe a physical landscape capable of transforming how park visitors perceive the National Park system, the role of sustainability in contemporary land management practice, and how multiple user groups may engage the landscape and have shared experiences. We intend to create a transformative platform in a manner that creates new social networks based on how people engage the site.

Van Alen Parks for the People | Cornell Landscape Architecture Thesis Studio Spring 2012 Page 2 1 November 2011

89

Thesis Studio Description The Design Thesis Studio is a collaborative studio in which students will share a common project site to investigate individual thesis topics. This studio environment will differ from other studios as participants have created their own design topics through research and discussion during the fall semester. The site will be investigated from multiple perspectives versus that of a single agenda described in a standard studio brief. The strength of this approach lies in the production of multiple solutions that will initiate new dialogues regarding the future of the National Park. In this manner the thesis studio emulates the goals of the thesis, creating a platform in which hybrid ideas emerge that will transform the manner in which a park is perceived and used.

The Site: The Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Located north of Atlanta, the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area is one of twenty National Recreation Areas managed by the National Park Service. The Chattahoochee serves the region as a recreation site, historic landscape, infrastructural network, and green corridor that connects Atlanta to three suburban communities and Lake Sidney Lanier. The differences between these three juxtaposed conditions are amplified by the lack of legibility of the site as part of the National Park system. Having become federally managed in the 1970s the site predates contemporary Atlanta. This designation, prior to Atlanta’s development boom and its proximity to the growing city made it a territory ideal for occupation by relatively affluent suburbanites while those persons with lower incomes remained in the city proper. As a result, the site hosts a series of programmed activities that are place-based, serving the needs of certain user groups while ignoring the needs of others.

The park is a byproduct of efforts by the US Army Corps of Engineers to manage floodwaters to protect Atlanta.

Built in the 1950s, the dam itself has multiple public, infrastructural and revenue-generating programs embedded in its use and operations, which may potentially serve as a precedent for future management of the Recreation Area.

The resulting landscape that is the National Recreation Area benefits from a level of control extending 50 miles south to Atlanta from the dam. This site is a very active landscape, existing within flood control systems located at multiple points. The hydrological landscape is one that is under constant observation, with data reported in the form of water level mapping at the flood control locations and data sent by phone reports to ensure boater safety.

The river and reservoir also serve as the water supply for Atlanta, transforming what is seen as a passive amenity into an active resource. The layered and sometimes conflicting uses of the river and surrounding landscape presents an ideal test bed to explore the role of contemporary National Park sites in urban areas and to create transitions across urban mosaics and gradients.

Goals and Intentions 1.

Create a problematic in which thesis students may evaluate individual topics related to the same project site. Multiple strategies will be engaged to analyze and design the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area.

The designs generated by each student will be layered to create a park strategy that is functional using a variety of metrics. This collaborative process will generate opportunities for cross-fertilization of projects, and for hybrid solutions to manifest themselves across multiple thesis topics.

2.

Create a platform in which the design principles of the Parks Service may be critically examined. The studio will initially approach the design of the park space using the six design principles set forth by Designing The Parks: reverence for place; engagement of all people; expansion beyond traditional boundaries; sustainability; informed decision-making; an integrated research, planning, design, and review process. The six topics discussed in the fall semester will serve as an overlay to evaluate these principles.

3.

Create a context in which thesis students and advisors have the opportunity to discuss issues across multiple projects. Typically the thesis project is an isolated process, wherein a small set of advisors play a specific role in the development of a single project. It is hoped that the open reviews and dialogue between students will engender discussions between individual advisors and thesis groups, creating opportunities for interdisciplinary discourse across the campus that may have not happened without the studio.

Van Alen Parks for the People | Cornell Landscape Architecture Thesis Studio Spring 2012 Page 3 1 November 2011

90

Thesis Investigations With an understanding of the problematic role of the National Recreation Area and the Chattahoochee River Recreation Area serving as a foundation, each student will address thesis questions they have generated during the research phase of the project. The thesis topics are as follows: 1) The National Park Service is recognized for its ability to attract diverse groups of visitors from all over the country, and the world, to a select number of iconic parks. These prominent parks, while popular with “tourists” are often not utilized heavily by the local or regional community. In contrast, recreation areas tend to be more for use by locals. How can a recreation area such as the Chattahoochee Recreation Area become perceived as more of a destination for national and international tourists, while remaining a point of interest for the local and regional users? What are the social spaces that need to be constructed on-site in order to engage these multiple user types?

2) The National Park Service is typically seen as a public amenity serving the needs of the people by providing protected open space. However, if revenue is dependent on visitorship and federal funding, a consistent economic stream for necessary operations is uncertain. The Chattahoochee River, Buford Dam, and Lake Sidney Lanier already generate revenue in the form of electricity and water for the residents of Atlanta. Would it be possible to create new economic opportunities related to not only the river, but also to the recreation area as a whole, independent of visitorship? In essence, can the park be designed to be economically sustainable regardless of visitor volume?

3) In the past, parks that are considered to have historic significance have monumentalized historic elements and thus have frozen the park in a specific moment in time, keeping it isolated from the contemporary context. This limits park identity, therefore excluding a range of uses and users. A recreation area responds to the changing desires of its user population and therefore is constantly evolving, potentially erasing any historic significance. How can history be leveraged to create a model for recreation areas that is dynamic, but grounded in the historic events that define it as a place? How is it that multiple periods of time and types of use may be overlapped in order to create a vibrant landscape? How can the historic legacy of the Chattahoochee Recreation Area be incorporated into the visitor experience while responding to the current desired uses of the site?

4) The viability and vibrancy of recreation in any waterbody is directly dependent upon the ecological health of the system. Urban rivers can provide functions in the form of nutrient cycling, migratory bird stops, and fish habitat, as well as services such as flood attenuation, water quality enhancement, recreational opportunity, urban cooling, and water supply. Surrounding development can have an impact on the health of that system, and there is a need to investigate the interrelationship with adjacent conditions and across the urban mosaic. How can enhanced legibility engage local stakeholders and the greater Atlanta community in the environmental health of its waterway? How can public engagement fuel ongoing stewardship efforts? How can the ecological services of the Chattahoochee be enhanced through design for greater user safety, economic output and long-term sustainability for the City of Atlanta?

5) The Chattahoochee River is a natural transect that connects Atlanta to its greater regional context. This is an important connection to register, enabling area residents to make social connections with adjacent communities in a regional setting. Would it be possible to enhance the role of the river as a network corridor and create opportunities for greater social interactions? Can the recreation area itself serve as a node in a larger corridor network? What role will technology play in facilitating networking opportunities and how can it enhance user safety?

6) One of the goals of the National Parks Service is to provide visitors with a memorable experience though image. The aesthetic inspiration provided by natural systems is extremely important for a park's success and popularity and, like the technical workings of a park, is a primarily anthropocentric system. Within the context of the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area, what imaged experience should the Parks Service seek to provide?

How should the vernacular qualities of the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area be expressed and exposed through design, in terms of landscape architecture and architecture? Can virtual interfaces create effective methods of experiencing the site?

Van Alen Parks for the People | Cornell Landscape Architecture Thesis Studio Spring 2012 Page 4 1 November 2011

91

Phases: The studio is structured around six phases. Phases one and two occur prior to the beginning of the spring 2012 semester, allowing students time to develop their topics and collect relevant content. Thesis students will identify their own methods of investigation based on the deliverables described in the schedule. The following phases are intended to serve as a framework for the development of their projects.

1- Competition/Thesis Preparation: Students shall develop thesis topics related to their personal interests and the Van Alen competition and developed within a seminar to discuss the National Park. We will use six topics, which are as follows: -Park as Curation: -Park as Lab:

What is the role of the park and what determines its legibility?

Can the park be seen as an experimental space, a field in flux and/or painterly space?

-The Emergent Park: How are uncertainty and adaptive management incorporated into park planning?

-Park as Economic Incubator: Can the park be a revenue generating entity and/or self-sustaining?

-Park as Network: How does the park incorporate technology and create social, infrastructural, and natural networks?

-Parkitecture: How does architecture influence park experience, legibility, and identity and is it the sole means to designate place?

As part of the preparation course, the students will have identified the site through discussion and consensus.

Finally, students shall identify the members of their thesis committee. Ideally, at least one committee member shall be a person outside of the student’s home department.

Deliverables: preliminary site maps, pre-thesis summary reports, revised thesis questions 2- Thesis Prep/Remote Mapping and Site research: Students shall continue to develop their thesis topics and research. In addition, students will be revising their investigations based on comments from members of the committee to include preliminary metrics.

Deliverables: preliminary site maps, thesis questions, preliminary research metrics and/or matrix 3- Mapping/Investigations: Thesis students shall be responsible for mapping and representation methods that best convey the nature of the problematic embedded in their respective topic. As the first phase within the spring semester, students shall be required to respond to their research in a manner that generates agendas to be investigated once on site.

Deliverables: research metrics and matrix applied site to generate site mapping and analysis.

4- Investigations/Preliminary Strategies: This is the testing phase of thesis projects. Students shall be responsible for identifying methods of representation that present opportunities for design solutions. Once this is complete, students shall present a set of potential scenarios that may be further developed.

Deliverables: initial site strategies and proposals applied to sites as identified through the matrix 5- Strategies/Proposals: During this phase one of the scenarios from phase four is developed as a design proposal. The scenario selected for further proposal shall be chosen based on its ability to best reveal the problem embedded in the thesis proposal.

Deliverables: revised site strategies and proposals with one site addressed in detail.

6- Findings and Documentation: Open reviews will be announced within the home departments of participating students and all departments within their respective graduate fields of study. Copies of the thesis shall be made available in the home departments, and within the Cornell Library System. A round table will be scheduled with faculty members who also served as thesis advisors, to support continued collaborative projects across the Cornell Campus. Finally, a document shall be prepared for the Van Alen Institute, and all other presentation materials as requested.

Deliverables: compiled drawings and text to accurately document the projects.

Van Alen Parks for the People | Cornell Landscape Architecture Thesis Studio Spring 2012 Page 5 1 November 2011

92

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

4Investigations/ Preliminary

2

5- Strategies /Proposals

1

3- Mapping/ Investigations

2- Thesis Prep/ Remote Mapping and Site research

1-Comp /Thesis prep

Wk

Phase

Calendar

16 17 18 19

6-Findings and Documentation

15

Sun

Mon

12-Sep

Tues

Wed.

Thu

Fri

Sat

Pre Thesis Research Seminar begins

2-Oct 31-Oct

Entry Deadline

Thesis Prep Pecha Kucha

27-Nov 4-Dec 11-Dec

Selection Announced Site research begins. Remote Mapping (Maps, G.I.S., etc.)

Thesis Prep Presentations

18-Dec 25-Dec 1-Jan

Winter Break/ Independent Research and respond to Advisor comments

8-Jan 15-Jan 22-Jan

Instruction Begins / Meet with Advisors

29-Jan

Group Pin-up number 1

5-Feb 12-Feb

Internal Thesis Reviews

19-Feb

Site Visit

26-Feb

Group Pin-up number 2

4-Mar 11-Mar 18-Mar

Spring Break (Optional Supplemental Site visit)

25-Mar

Internal Thesis Reviews

1-Apr 8-Apr 15-Apr

Group Pin-up number 3 Final Reviews Scheduled and Announced/ Final Internal Thesis Reviews

22-Apr 29-Apr

Final Thesis Reviews

6-May Final individual thesis book revisions 13May 20May

Adviser Roundtable Final Thesis document compiled

Compendium Compilation for the Van Alen Institute/ digital formatting completed

27-May Graduation

Van Alen Parks for the People | Cornell Landscape Architecture Thesis Studio Spring 2012 Page 6 1 November 2011

93

Advisers Name

Department

Contributing Role

Richard Booth, JD

City and Regional Planning

Environmental Conservation, Park Advocacy

Shorna Broussard Allred, PhD.

Natural Resources

Natural Resources and Human Behavior

Josh Cerra, MLA

Landscape Architecture

Ecology and Design

Dr. Ann Forsyth, PhD.

City and Regional Planning

Planning and Land Use policy

Jeremy Foster, PhD.

Landscape Architecture

Human Geography, Urbanism, and Design

Gustavo Furtado, PhD.

Romance Studies

Cultural Geography, History

Kathy Gleason, PhD.

Landscape Architecture

Archeology, History and Design

Dan Krall, MLA

Landscape Architecture

Landscape Preservation and Design

Yehre Suh, MARCH

Architecture

Architecture and Urbanism

Peter Trowbridge, MLA

Landscape Architecture

Construction Technology and Design

Tom Whitlow , PhD.

Horticulture

Restoration Ecology and Human Health & the Environment

Preparation Adviser/ Competition Coordinator Marc Miller, MLA, March, Lecturer, Department of Landscape Architecture 440 Kennedy Hall Cornell University Ithaca Ny 14850 607.255.9552 mlm78@cornell.edu

Van Alen Parks for the People | Cornell Landscape Architecture Thesis Studio Spring 2012 Page 7 1 November 2011

94

Annotated Bibliography Carr, Ethan. Mission 66: Modernism and the National Park Dilemma. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2007. Print.

Carr, Ethan. Wilderness by Design: Landscape Architecture and the National Park Service. Lincoln, Neb: University of Nebraska Press, 1998. Print.

Czerniak, Julia. Case--downsview Park Toronto. Munich: Prestel, 2001. Print.

Czerniak, Julia. "Challenging the Pictorial: Recent Landscape Practice." Assemblage. (1997): 110-120. Print.

Czerniak, Julia. “Speculating on Site,” in Large Parks. Julia Czerniak; George Hargreaves; ed. New York: Princeton Architectural Press ; Cambridge, Mass. : In Association with the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, 2007 Easterling, Keller. Organization Space: Landscapes, Highways, and Houses in America. Cambridge, Massachusetts [etc.: MIT Press, 1999 Print.

Easterling, Keller. "Siting Protocols." Suburban Discipline. Ed. Peter Lang and Tam Miller. New York: Princeton Architectural, 1997. Print.

Farr, Douglas. Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley, 2008. Print.

Gandy, Matthew. “The Ecological Facades of Patrick Blanc” in Architectural Design: A.D. Vol. 80, no. 3, May 2010.

Gandy, Matthew. Concrete and Clay: Reworking Nature in New York City. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2002. Print.

Gissen, David. "APE." Design Ecologies: Essays on the Nature of Design. Ed. Beth Blostein and Jane Amidon. New York: Princeton Architectural, 2010. Print.

Leatherbarrow, David. Topographical Stories: Studies in Landscape and Architecture. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 200 Print.

Leatherbarrow, David. "Chapter 5, In and Outside Architecture." Uncommon Ground: Architecture, Technology, and Topography.

Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2000. Print.

Lister, Nina Marie. “Sustainable Sites Ecological Design or Designer Ecology?” in Large Parks. Julia Czerniak; George Hargreaves; ed.

New York : Princeton Architectural Press ; Cambridge, Mass. : In Association with the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, 2007 Marco, Daniel, and Giordano Tiroi. "The Territory versus the City: Origins of an Anti-urban Condition." Suburban Discipline. Ed. Peter Lang and Tam Miller. New York: Princeton Architectural, 1997. Print.

Meyer, Elizabeth. “Uncertain Parks: Disturbed sites, Citizens and Risk Society,” in Large Parks. Julia Czerniak; George Hargreaves; ed.

New York : Princeton Architectural Press ; Cambridge, Mass. : In Association with the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, 2007 Mosaics. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2008. Print.

Mostafavi, Mohsen, and Gareth Doherty. Ecological Urbanism. Baden, Switzerland: Lars Müller Publishers, 2010. Print.

Mostafavi, Mohsen, and Ciro Najle. Landscape Urbanism: A Manual for the Machinic Landscape. London: Architectural Association, 200 Print.

National Park Service. "Parkitecture in Western National Parks: Early Twentieth Century Rustic Design and Naturalism." National Park Service Cultural Resources Discover History. Web. 02 Oct. 2011. <http://www.cr.nps.gov/hdp/exhibits/parkitect/>.

Nye, David E. American Technological Sublime. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1994. Print.

Rowe, Peter G. Civic Realism. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1997. Print.

Tiberghien, Gilles A, Michel Desvigne, and James Corner. Intermediate Natures: The Landscapes of Michel Desvigne. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2009. Print.

Van Alen Parks for the People | Cornell Landscape Architecture Thesis Studio Spring 2012 Page 8 1 November 2011

95

Appendix ii TIMELINE : CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER NATIONAL RECREATION AREA Typically, rivers meander and change course over time. However, the Chattahoochee River is one of the oldest and most stable river channels within the United States, since it’s essentially “locked” in place, flowing along the Brevard Fault Zone. (http://www.ngeorgia.com/nps-chattahoochee-river.html) 10,000 -8,000 BCE years ago Chattahoochee River corridor was used by prehistoric groups. Nomadic Paleo-Indians hunted, fished, gathered. *very little archeological evidence remains* Rock Shelters inhabited by Native dwellers (307.7 Cochran Shoals) Prehistoric people would shelter under the large rock overhangs found along the Chattahoochee River.

Usually for hunting parties.

8,000 - 1,000 BCE Archaic groups/ southeastern Indians. hunting, tools , pottery, camped near water sources *trade increased the spread of non-native plants* 1,000 BCE - 900 AD Woodland period: efficient hunting/gathering techniques. cultures began farming in river flood plain. Indian village sites more permanent and flourished along this rich corridor of fertile soils 900 AD - 1500 AD Mississippian Period: subsistence agriculture produced a flourishing culture, mound complexes further south (of our site), central and organized political structure. Corn crops 1650 Lamar population relocated to Chattahoochee River falls from Mississippian settlement on the Ocmulgee River.

Creek (or Muskogee) Indians inhabited the area during the Colonial settlement period, coincided with European exploration.

Fish Weirs (Some date to prehistoric times and a few can be dated to Native American/ White settler times. There are 11 total remaining remnants in the CRNRA) Cherokee (assos. w/ Iroquois) lived in Appalachian Mountains. Migrated south toward Chattahoochee in early 7th century. Expansion of their territory led to violent land disputes w/Creek Nation.

Cherokee and Creek: Creek defeat at Ball Ground battle (in current Cherokee County) led to Chattahoochee River being the boundary. Northwest bank=Cherokee; Southeast bank= Creek. The river was the natural boundary to their hunting grounds. which paralleled the river (hence lack of extensive ruins/ relics in the park ground; few permanent settlements but hunters may have used rock outcrops on trips) Two settlements did exist: Suwanee (settled by Shawnee Indians in 18th century) & Standing Peachtree 1743 Creek signed a treaty with British; Creek cession of much of NW GA & NE Alabama to Cherokee

96

1762 Standing Peachtree, Native American trading post, first mentioned; earthen mound on either side of the river. Border town, possibly named for standing pine (pitch-tree).

1783 Creek under increased pressure from incoming White settlers to GA from the Carolinas.

1813-1814 Creek War between settlers and Creeks, from tensions involving land. White settlers moving in on land. Standing Peachtree becomes a fort for Federal forces during Creek War. Horseshoe Bend National Military park preserves battle site.

1820 1821 Creek Natives cede all land east of Chattahoochee River to the State of Georgia, including the village to flint River and Line Creek. (now Metro Atlanta), removed to Oklahoma 1821: Permanent settlers begin moving into former Creek Indian lands that would eventually become metropolitan Atlanta.

1822 Decatur founded 1826 Treaty of Washington ceded most of remaining state west of the Chattahoochee.

1828 All Creek gone from Georgia and what is now Cobb County was opened to White Settlement 1829 gold discovered in Dahlonega, GA: efforts begin to remove Cherokee.

1830 Industry began along Sope (Soap) Creek (in Cobb County); small farms and railroads Vickery Creek Dam constructed to power mills Joseph Hyde purchases Land to start Hyde Farm 1831 State surveyed Cherokee territory for a land lottery Dec 26th Cherokee County formed from land west of and adjacent to Chattahoochee River 1832 Land Lottery held 1833 Cobb Country established from part of Cherokee County (for Judge Thomas W Cobb): included SOPE CREEK, which begins in Marietta (the county seat). Supported scattered small farms 1835 Cherokee minority signed Treaty of New Echota w/ Federal Gov’t: ceding all lands, compelling majority westward move.

1836 census lists “Old Sope”, a Cherokee man, as having a cabin near ‘Sharp Mountain Creek” 1836 Western and Atlantic Railroad approved

97

1837: The area now comprising the city was chosen as the site for a new railroad terminus connecting Georgia with Chattanooga, TN and points west, including the Chattahoochee and Tennessee Rivers. The city was dubbed “Terminus,” and the termination point is now Five Points in downtown Atlanta.

1838 Cherokee Natives removed (Trail of Tears)Rail line promotes growth of Marietta and several manufacturing mills relocated to Cobb County.

55 miles of railroad tracks under constructed and railroad crossed Chattahoochee River @ Montgomery’s ferry.

1839 John Thrasher builds settlement at terminus Bulloch Hall (Confederate Spy, Roosevelt’s mother) Roswell Factory established and operating 1840 1842 Georgia railroad arrive from Augusta Barrington Hall (Greek Revival, founder of Roswell) 1843: “Terminus” was renamed “Marthasville” in honor of Martha Lumpkin, daughter of Georgia Gov. Wilson Lumpkin. The town spread out around the train depot, end of W&A railroad. Connected to Chattanooga, Tennessee.

1845: “Marthasville” was renamed “Atlanta,” a feminine form of Atlantic, probably created by Steven Harriman Long, a Western & Atlantic Railroad engineer.

1845 Allenbrook House built 1847 Atlanta incorporated 1850 population 2,572 Cobb county: 1,918 families: pop 11,571 free citizens, 2,272 slaves 1852 Marietta incorporated as a city: over 10,000 1853 (Dec 20th) Fulton County formed from ½ of DeKalb County (150th County) Larger Dam, Machine Shop constructed at Vickery Creek First documented commercial industry at Sope Creek: A flour mill operated

by Edward Denmead. Grist Mill built, 125 barrels flour daily. 200 yds upstream from historic paper mill (north of park boundary) 1855 Laurel / Ivy Mill 1859 Marietta Paper mill incorporated: produced newsprint, paper products; 2nd paper mill in Georgia: height of industry @ Sope Creek 1860 population 9,554

98

1861: The Civil War begins. Atlanta was considered the transportation hub of the Southeast.

1863 Marietta Paper Mill production stopped: short of hands!

1864 Civil War: General Sherman invades (During the Civil War, Union General William T. Sherman burned Atlanta to the ground (about 70 percent of its buildings were destroyed) on his infamous March to the Sea. The war ended the next year.)

Much of Chattahoochee (Atlanta) structures rebuilt: Laurel/Ivy Mill, Marietta paper mill burned by Sherman’s advance lanta

Sherman crossed near Sope Creek to attack the Confederate defenses of At-

1865 Marietta Paper mill rebuilt 1868 Atlanta made State Capitol (replaces Milledgeville) 1869 Marietta Paper Mill reopened 1870 population: 21,879 1871 Horse-drawn streetcars appear, city expands!

1880 population 37, 409 Atlanta surpasses Savannah as Georgia’s largest city Settle Bridge constructed Census reveals 8 employess at Sope Creek mill making $25k+ 1882 Roswell Mill constructed 1888 Marietta Paper mill expanded w/ addition of pulp mill 1889 First electric streetcars (more expansion) 1890 population 65, 533 1900 pop 89,872 – metro 419,375 1900s Hyde Family bought farm from the Powers family, farmed into the 1990s, electricity in 1990 1902 Industrial period of Sope Creek ended (due to fire). never rebuilt 1904 Morgan Falls Dam: Atlanta’s first hydropower Jones Bridge Completed 1910 pop 154,839 – metro 522,442

99

1916 National Park Service Organic Act established the National Park Service (NPS) 1917: The worst fire since Sherman’s March to the Sea leaves 10,000 Atlantans homeless as it burns nearly 2,000 buildings covering 300 acres.

Ivy/Laurel Mill 1920 pop 200,616 - metro 622,283 1923 Spring Street Viaduct opens, downtown rises above train tracks 1930 pop 270,366 - metro 715,391 The Island Ford Visitor Contact Station was once the Summer family home of former Georgia Superior Court Judge Samuel Hewlett. Construction began in the 1930’s, using timber from the Okeefenokee Swamp and stone from Stone Mountain, taking six years to complete.

1932 (Jan 1st) Fulton County acquires Campbell and Milton County 1940 pop 302,288 - metro 820,579 1940 Jones Bridge under construction; half the bridge stolen 1949 Last streetcar line converted to trolleybus 1950 pop 331,314 - metro 997,666 1953-56 Buford Dam starts construction by Army Corps of Engineers: creates /Lake Sidney Lanier eliminates periodic floods.

1960 pop 487,455 - metro 1,312,474 1963 MANY BIG THINGS HAPPENED HERE National Recreation Areas Established President and Congress Trolleybuses converted en masse to buses overweight truck crossed the Old Mill Road bridge and damaged the support structure. That summer, the structure was reinforced with steel shanks.

1964 Sope Creek Covered bridge was burned to the ground. Arson suspected.

1969 Perimeter freeway opens 1970 pop 496,973 - metro 1,763,626 1970s Movement; Atlanta’s growth plateaus at 496,000 people 1970 – 2000 City of Atlanta loses 100,000 (16% decrease) Metropolitan area keeps growing

100

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) purchased the Atlanta Transit System and began extending its routes, replacing its old buses and engineering a rapid rail system.

First Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of Sope Creek landscape prompted by proposal for Cobb-fulton Sewer County line 1973 Metropolitan River Protection Act established 2000ft corridor on either side of the Chattahoochee River; land development allowed but restricted.

1975 sewer location changed as result of EIS findings 1978 President Jimmy Carter Signs Bill to create Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area; Preserve, protect natural beauty, history and recreational value. Allowed to acquire 6,800 acres.

1979 MARTA opens first rail rapid transit line 1980 pop 425,022 - metro 2,233,324 1980 Rambling Raft Race canceled due to unsafe water 1986 Chelsea M Miller, famed visionary of the CRNRA, is born 1990 pop 394,017 - metro 2,959,950 1999 bill passes expanding the boundary of the park, 2000 foot-wide buffer to protect resources (closely matches the 100-year-flood plain) 2000-2010 Black and white populations increase 2000 pop 416,474 - metro 4,112,198 2005 Airport becomes world’s busiest; BeltLine plan adopted adding 40% to city’s green space 2010 pop. 420, 003 – metro (CSA) 5,729,304 2011 Parks for the People competition Cornell University chosen to transform Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area 2012 Chattahoochee River Designated America’s First National Water Trail

Sources: CRNRA Historic Resource Study, Sope Creek Cultural Landscape Report, US Census

101

BIBLIOGRAPHY Pre-thesis Seminar Bibliography Carr, Ethan. Mission 66: Modernism and the National Park Dilemma. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2007. Print.

Carr, Ethan. Wilderness by Design: Landscape Architecture and the National Park Service. Lincoln, Neb: University of Nebraska Press,1998. Print.

Czerniak, Julia. Case--Downsview Park Toronto. Munich: Prestel, 2001. Print.

Czerniak, Julia. “Challenging the Pictorial: Recent Landscape Practice.”Assemblage.

(1997): 110-120. Print.

Czerniak, Julia. “Speculating on Site,” in Large Parks. Julia Czerniak; George Hargreaves; ed. New York: Princeton Architectural Press ; Cambridge, Mass. : In Association with the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, 2007 Duncan, James S., and David Ley.Place/Culture/Representation. London: Routledge, 1993.

Easterling, Keller. Organization Space: Landscapes, Highways, and Houses in America.

Cambridge, Massachusetts [etc.: MIT Press, 1999. Print.

Easterling, Keller. “Siting Protocols.”Suburban Discipline.Ed. Peter Lang and Tam Miller.

New York: Princeton Architectural, 1997. Print.

Farr, Douglas. Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley, 2008. Print.

Gandy, Matthew. “The Ecological Facades of Patrick Blanc” in Architectural Design: A.D. Vol. 80, no. 3, May 2010.

Gandy, Matthew. Concrete and Clay: Reworking Nature in New York City. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2002. Print.

Gissen, David. “APE.” Design Ecologies: Essays on the Nature of Design. Ed. Beth Blostein and Jane Amidon. New York: Princeton Architectural, 2010. Print.

Leatherbarrow, David. Topographical Stories: Studies in Landscape and Architecture.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. Print.

Leatherbarrow, David. “Chapter 5, In and Outside Architecture.” Uncommon Ground: Architecture, Technology, and Topography. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2000. Print.

Lister, Nina Marie. “Sustainable Sites Ecological Design or Designer Ecology?” in Large Parks. Julia Czerniak; George Hargreaves; ed. New York : Princeton Architectural Press ; Cambridge, Mass. : In Association with the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, 2007 Marco, Daniel, and Giordano Tiroi. “The Territory versus the City: Origins of an Antiurban Condition.” Suburban Discipline. Ed. Peter Lang and Tam Miller. New York: Princeton Architectural, 1997. Print.

102

Meyer, Elizabeth. “Uncertain Parks: Disturbed sites, Citizens and Risk Society,” in Large Parks. Julia Czerniak; George Hargreaves; ed. New York : Princeton Architectural Press ; Cambridge, Mass. : In Association with the Harvard University Graduate School of Design,2007 Mosaics. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2008. Print.

Mostafavi, Mohsen, and Gareth Doherty.Ecological Urbanism. Baden, Switzerland: Lars Müller Publishers, 2010. Print.

Mostafavi, Mohsen, and CiroNajle. Landscape Urbanism: A Manual for the Machinic Landscape. London: Architectural Association, 2003.Print.

National Park Service.”Parkitecture in Western National Parks: Early Twentieth Century Rustic Design and Naturalism.” National Park Service Cultural Resources Discover History. Web. 02 Oct. 2011. <http://www.cr.nps.gov/hdp/exhibits/parkitect/>.

Nye, David E. American Technological Sublime. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1994.

Print.

Rowe, Peter G. Civic Realism. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1997. Print.

Tiberghien, Gilles A, Michel Desvigne, and James Corner. Intermediate Natures: The Landscapes of Michel Desvigne. Basel: Birkhäuser,2009. Print.

103

Thesis Working Bibliography Appleyard, Donald, Kevin Lynch, and John Randolph Myer. The View from the Road.

Cambridge: Published for the Joint Center for Urban Studies of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University by the M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1964.

Byrd, Beth Wheeler. Sope Creek, Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area: Cultural Landscape Report. Atlanta, Ga: National Park Service, Southeast Regional Office, Cultural Resources Division, 2009.

Corner, James.”The Agency of Mapping: Speculation, Critique and Invention” and In On Landscape Urbanism. Edited by Dean Almy. Austin, TX: Center for American Architecture and Design, University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture, 2007.

Gerdes, Marti, and Scott Messer. Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area Historic Resource Study. Atlanta, GA: Cultural Resources Division, Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service, 2007. <http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS81937>.

Jackson, John Brinckerhoff. Discovering the Vernacular Landscape. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984.

Jackson, John Brinckerhoff. The Necessity for Ruins, and Other Topics. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1980.

Lewis, Pierce F. “Axioms for Reading the Landscape” In The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays. Edited by D. W. Meinig and John Brinckerhoff Jackson. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979.

Longstreth, Richard W. Cultural Landscapes: Balancing Nature and Heritage in Preservation Practice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008.

Lynch, Kevin. What Time Is This Place? Cambridge: MIT Press, 1972.

Mathur, Anuradha, and Dilip da Cunha. Deccan Traverses: The Making of Bangalore’s Terrain. New Delhi: Rupa, 2006..

Mathur, Anuradha, and Dilip da Cunha. Mississippi Floods: Designing a Shifting Landscape. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001.

Mathur, Anuradha, and Dilip da Cunha. SOAK. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005.

Newton, Norman T. “The National Park System” pp 917-939 Design on the Land; The Development of Landscape Architecture. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971. -modernist voice on park Spirn, Anne Whiston. The Granite Garden: Urban Nature and Human Design. New York: Basic Books, 1984. -for how a river runs through a city—specifically a project she mentions on Denver.

Venturi, Robert, Denise Scott Brown, and Steven Izenour. Learning from Las Vegas.

Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1972.

104

105

106