Langdon & Mansion Hill Waterfront Development

Zach Small

A SENIOR CAPSTONE PROPOSAL

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor of Science in Landscape Architecture

Department of Landscape Architecture College of Agricultural and Life Sciences

University of Wisconsin - Madison Madison, WI

December, 2013

Approved by Eric J. Schuchardt, MLAUD, Associate ASLA Capstone Coordinator & Course Instructor

1 Figure 1.01, Post Card of Lake Mendota, c 1890s Acknowledgements

This project would not be possible if not for the generous Planning Department, for allowing me to carry on with contributions of my instructors, fellow students, and my the impressive work of the Downtown Plan, Jason and the clients. I would like to thank capstone coordinators for Madison Trust for Historic Preservation, Connor Nett and Our guiding me through this process, Rebecca Cnare Amy Historic Campus, Brenda Williams of Quinn Evans Architects, Scanlon and City of Madison and Matt Covert of 1000 Friends of Wisconsin for providing their resources and expertise. Additionally, I would like to thank my fellow classmates for inspiring, encouraging and entertaining me throughout the past four years, and to all my instructors at the UW-Madison Department of Landscape Architecture for introducing me to this incredible profession.

2 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Figure 1.02, Wisconsin Ave, Looking North Towards Lake Mendota, 1872

Abstract

This project examines the Mansion HIll and Langdon Districts ultimately attempting to balance historic preservation of Madison, Wisconsin, with the intention of creating publlc with development pressures in the neighbhorhood while openspace infrastructure along Lake Mendota. Site history providing public infrastructure to complement the character and inventory will inform a regional, community and of the district. The City of Madison Planning Department, the site scale analysis which will provide a basis for a design Madison Trust for Historic Preservation, Our Historic Campus proposal. The project will explore historic preservation issues, and 1000 Friends of Wisconsin will serve as my client.

3 Design Ethics & The Author

Growing up in Madison, I’ve spent a great deal of time in the city’s public spaces. From running in the UW Arboretum, to biking the capitol city trail, to enjoying a pitcher at the Union Terrace I have a tremendous appreciation for the incredible spaces that make Madison unique.

My decision to become a landscape architect was shaped by my appreciation for the city I grew up in. As I enter the profession, I hope to positvely shape the environment while providing others the opportunity to experience great spaces.

Zach Small Department of Landscape Architecture

Fall 2013

4 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Contents

Introduction 6-15 Project Workflow 16 Stakeholders, Goals & Program 17-21 Research Topic 22-24 Project Type and Professional Focus 25 Site and Community Inventory, Analysis & Spatial Reccommendations 26-39 Regional Inventory, Analysis & Recommendations 40-47

Precedent Review 48-50 Evaluation Criteria 50-51 Expected Results 52 Design Solutions and Rationale 54-81 Reflection 82 Press Release 83 Appendix 56-57

5 Figure 1.03 Lake Mendota Shore, 1917 Introduction

To fulfill the requirements of the senior capstone program preservation projects now encompass the complete built in the Department of Landscape Architecture at the environment in areas ranging from cultural landscapes and University of Wisconsin-Madison, I will investigate how sacred sites to vernacular landscapes. (Araoz 2008) With a ideas of historic preservation may inform the design of a broadening of scope in the field, new attitudes exist about waterfront development. This investigation will be given preservation’s role in shaping urban development. context and focus by the concerns and goals of the City of Madison Planning Department, 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, Where early to mid-century preservationists were the Madison Trust for Historic Preservation and Our Historic concerned with restoring buildings for their original use Campus which include waterfront design, bike path design and intent, many modern preservationists acknowledge and cultural resource preservation. The Mansion Hill and a need for preservation projects to adapt to and improve Langdon Districts of Madison, Wisconsin will be the site for on the modern built environment. Araoz (2008) discusses this study. the growing trend in preservation to utilize design to display layers of history within the urban fabric. While preservationists The past thirty years has seen a growing body of research generally oppose development that is out of character with and application in historic preservation. Once limited only the existing urban landscape, thoughtful, scale appropriate to the restoration buildings of historic significance, historic new architecture is an often accepted improvement to a

6 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Figure 1.04: 100 Block E. Gilman Street,

Introduction 7 historic area. Likewise, landscape and green infrastructure my design will incorporate many of the ideas developed in projects that incorporate best practices can greatly the Downtown Plan with an emphasis on thoughtful historic improve the environmental ecology and enhance the preservation. Within this purview, I will explore the market overall sustainability of a historic area. In today’s eclectic forces and policy decisions shaping housing development Madison, WI urban environments, a delicate balance between in downtown Madison. The regional focus of my project will preservation and thoughtful new development must inform be in exploring the availability of low-cost diverse housing the design decisions that shape our landscapes. opportunities for renters in central Madison, evaluating plans for increased density in the isthmus and improving The Victorian- Period Mansion Hill and Langdon Districts connections in Madison’s bicycle network.. of Madison, Wisconsin provide an intriguing case study in which to explore this relationship. As a primarily student In exploring opportunities for green infrastructure and neighborhood adjacent to the University of Wisconsin – affordable housing within the existing historic urban fabric, Madison and Lake Mendota, the districts consist of primarily my precedent research will explore context sensitive student rentals and sorority and fraternity housing. Though approaches to new development. The complex struggle local and national preservation policy established in the between new development and preservation will inform 1970s and 1980s have limited modern development in the my final proposal, which will seek to enhance the existing area, a growing market demand for high-rise student rental character within the Mansion Hill and Langdon Districts. housing threatens the historic character of the district. In Balancing a thorough historical awareness with thoughtful the past two years, five contributing properties have been planning for the future is a difficult challenge, but one that razed in the Langdon district to make way for modern four is ever so relevant to the landscape architecture profession. story and seven story high-rise developments. Currently, I look forward to both the insights and challenges I will organizations Our Historic Campus and the Madison Trust for experience as I delve into this fascinating topic. Historic Preservation are writing legislation to establish a local historic district within the Langdon neighborhood. Capstone Documents

As citizen groups react to the growing threat of context The products of my senior capstone thesis will include a insensitive development, the City of Madison Downtown set of design documents and recommendations for the Plan provides a progressive vision for the future of the two Mansion Hill and Langdon Districts, which will be historic districts. The proposed extension of the Howard submitted to the City of Madison Planning Department, Temin Lakeshore Path from the Wisconsin Union to James Portions of my research will be submitted to the Madison Madison Park, offers opportunities to enhance the city’s Trust for Historic Preservation and Our Historic Campus for bicycle- pedestrian network and create greater public inclusion in the official nomination of the City of Madison waterfront access. Likewise, the Downtown’s Plan’s proposal Langdon Historic District. of a pedestrian- bicycled oriented street network within the historic alleyways of the Langdon district offer opportunities In addition to the design documents, a unified capstone for improvements to the environmental, social, and document will be submitted to the Department of economic health of downtown Madison. Building on the Landscape Architecture in partial fulfillment of a Bachelor of City of Madison’s proposal for neighborhood improvements, Science in Landscape Architecture.

8 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Madison, WI Mansion HIll Neighborhood Langdon Lake Mendota Neighborhood Memorial

Union Hamilton St. University of Wisconsin Lake Monona Wisconsin Ave Madison University of Wisconsin State Street Madison Lake Street Lake

0 1 2 Miles Figure 2.01: Context Map Project Context

My project focuses on the Mansion Hill and Langdon districts in downtown Madison, Wisconsin (Figure 2.01) The area of study extends from James Madison Park in th east to Memorial Union in the west. The State Street commercial corridor forms the southwest boundary of the site, while the Wisconsin State capitel makes up the southern border of the site. The site is bordered by Lake Mendota to the North.

Context and Background 9

0 1 2 Miles Mansion HIll/ Langdon Neighborhoods Project Background

1850s- 1890: Big Bug HIll Referred to as Big Bug Hill and Aristocracy Hill, Mansion Hill Neighborhood was once the home of Madison’s most prominent citizens. Beginning in the 1850s Madison’s wealth began to build on the bluffs towering over Lake Mendota., Influential politicians, merchants, industrialists, professors and lawyers made their homes in this exclusive neighborhood, constructing immaculate houses and gardens that flaunted their wealth. Architects built in eclectic Victorian styles, honoring an array classic European architecture styles. Sandstone Italianate structures with expansive porches borrowed from Mediterranean architecture, incorporating design elements from a wide array of classic styles (Tipler 1981, 1-5).

Figure 2.02: Anniversary of Mrs. AE Proudfit, c 1889

Figure 2.03: Levi Vilas House, 1880

10 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture N Mansion HIll/ Langdon Neighborhoods 1890- 1950s Greek Row In the late 1890s and 1900s, a surge of enrollment at UW- Madison created a large demand for student housing in Madison. Fraternities and sororities began making their homes along Langdon Street and Lake Mendota (Tipler,1981 32-35).

A lack of roads, and unplanned development between Langdon Street and Lake Mendota helped to create informal circulation network, which developed as Greek Lodges gradually filled the neighborhood. The piecemeal nature of construction allowed for the formation narrow alleyways that mimicked the organic form of a European village. Unplanned by designers or city officials, the organic paths juxtapose John Nolan’s classic axial city of Madison Plan, creating a unique sense of place within the neighborhood. These alleyways exist to this day, weaving in and out of the large revival greek houses that make up much of the neighborhood (Tipler, 1981, Tish, 2013). Figure 2.04: Alpha Epsilon Phi Dinner Party, 1933

Figure 2.05: Kappa Delta Sorority House, 1946

Context and Background 11 Changing Demographics: Changing Landscape

Over time the social and physical makeup of the neighborhood changed as the area transitioned to accommodate new uses. Beginning in the 1910s, commercial growth in central Madison created a demand for apartment buildings in the neighborhood. New three and four story apartment buildings provided housing for working class people and UW- Madison students. As new arrivals made their homes in the neighborhood, Madison’s aristocracy began to leave their homes, fleeing to the desirable suburbs of Maple Bluff and University Heights. In the 1930s, changes in the city of Madison zoning code allowed for the first high-rise apartments in the neighborhood. The 5 story Quisling Towers Apartment building was constructed in 1931 in the Art Deco style, followed by other higher density buildings in the 1930s (Tipler,1981, 35). Figure 2.06 142 Langdon Street

As WWII began, demand for housing in Madison became very high. The influx of over 10,000 workers to the Badger Munitions Plant in Baraboo strained Madison’s housing resources. Classified by the Federal Government as a housing emergency zone, the city raced to provide housing for new arrivals to Dane County. In Mansion Hill, many of the large single family houses were broken up into smaller multi- family units (Tipler, 1981, 35).

An ethic of “progress” defined the post war era in Mansion Hill. Neglect of older properties and the high degree of maintenance associated with the mansions contributed to a public impression that characterized Victorian homes as “old fashioned.” Developers, responding to a high demand for UW Madison student housing in the 1960s, used this argument to justify demolition of historic properties, In 1959 the Italianate style Flora Miers House at 116 E Gilman Street was razed to make way for, Haase Apartments, a building celebrated by architectural critics for its sleek modernism . The development of Highlander House and Henry Gilman Apartments in the 1960s and 1970s took a greater dent in the historic housing stock (Tipler, 1981, 36). Figure 2.07: Keenan House and National Guardian Life Insurance Building, 1971 12 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Preservation Responding to the growing threat of losing historic structures in Mansion Hill and Langdon, community members began to advocate for preservation within the neighborhood. In 1972, when developers attempted to build an eight story apartment building on the corner of Gorham and Pinckney Street, community members formed a non-profit organization and bought the vacant lot. Community involvement in over the last forty years has transformed this space into a public park. Period Garden Park sits as an elegant pocket park, maintained and funded primarily by neighborhood volunteers (periodgardenpark.org, Tipler 1981, 37) .

Local and national legislation over the past forty years has been another important tool for preservationists in the neighborhood. In 1976, the Mansion Hill Neighborhood was designated a historic district by the Madison Common Council. In 1997 the neighborhood was placed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Langdon Street neighborhood was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1986, but is not currently considered a historic district by the City of Madison (National Parks Figure 2.08: Period Garden Park Service, 2013, City of Madison, 2013).

Figure 1.01 - Riverfront trail connection

Figure 1.03 - Riverfront trail connection Figure 2.09: Interpretive Signage Context and Background 13 National vs Local Preservation Districts: The Carrot vs. The Stick The difference in legislative statuses of the two neighborhoods has important implications for what can Mansion HIll and cannot be built in the area. Whereas a National National Historic Third Lake Ridge Historic district puts more emphasis on incentivizing property National Historic District District owners to care for and restore their properties through tax Butler S incentives, the local historic district places more emphasis on restricting the demolition of properties. Because of the Langdon National treet restrictive components of a local district, it is ultimately Historic District W a more powerful tool in influencing development policy isc than the national designation. The stick is ultimately more onsin A powerful than the carrot (Scanlon and Cnare, 2013). ve Langdon St. Car oll S Mansion Hill’s status as a both a local and national . t. tr historic district has limited the demolition of structures t S eet . in the neighborhood while encouraging restoration of St Gilman S orhamn architecturally rich properties. In contrast, the Langdon G Figure 2.09: National Historic Districts district’s status as a National Historic District has done little Johnson to prevent the demolition of structures in the neighborhood. Without the local historic status, little can be done to save historic buildings. Mansion HIll University Heights MansionLocal Historic HIll As a growing demand for luxury student housing creates Third Lake Ridge a building boom of apartment buildings around the UW- DistrictLocal Historic District Madison campus, the Langdon Street neighborhood has Butler S again become an attractive area for redevelopment. ProposedNational His Langdontoric Distri ct Proposed Langdon tr DugeonSituated Mon radjacentoe to the UW Madison campus and Local eet local historic district (existing) DugeonMemorial Monr oeUnion and within a five minute walk of Madison’s Local Historic Distrct W iconic State Street commercial district, Langdon is a highly Historic District isc desirable location for many student renters. In recent years, onsin A local historic district (proposed) developers has seized on the opportunity to develop in this ve highly desirable location, building new apartment buildings Langdon St. Car national historic district oll S along the eastern portion of Langdon Street. While the . t. t tr new construction hasVV allowedilasilas for more residents to enjoy eet t. this unique neighborhood, it has come at the expense of ilman S G Gorhamn S Legend historic properties. In 2008 the construction of an eight story Miles highrise at 621 Mendota Court involved the demolition of Johnson S Local_Historic_District Figure 2.10: Local Historic Districts 0 0.25 0.5 1

14 ZachUni Smallversi BS inty Landscape Heights Architecture

local historic district (existing) 0 0.25 0.5 1DugeonMiles Monroe local historic district (proposed) national historic district VVilasilas Legend Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 Local_Historic_District

0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles a historic fraternity house. This past year, the construction of Waterfront Apartments, a seven story apartment and fraternity building on Iota Court and Henry Street has contributed to the demolition of four historic properties. Currently, the proposed construction of a 33 unit, 47 resident apartment at 622 and 632 Howard Place would require the demolition of a craftsman bungalow built in 1909 and a large Victorian house built in 1910 (Tish, 2013).

Preservation Today: Finding Balance The conflict between preservationists and developers in the Langdon District today mirrors the same struggle that has existed in the neighborhood for the past one hundred and fifty years. The balance between new development and preservation is classic struggle between valuing what you have, and valuing change.

Throughout its history, Mansion Hill and Langdon have continually adapted to a changing context. As demographics shifted, the physical environment was altered, constantly changing in response to its urban environment. Today, several dominant question remain: Figure 2.11: - Waterfront Apartments Proposal

How can development accommodate new uses, while maintaining the integrity of what is already there?

Who should decide what is preserved?

Figure 2.12: - Iota Court Proposal

Context and Background 15 Project Workflow

The four main componenants of capstone all build on eachother (Figure 3.01) , concluding with the production of remove edge the final capstone document at the end of the year. Months are mapped on the x axis while hours worked our mapped Zach Small Workflow Diagram Bachelor of Science in Landscape Architecture on the y axis. 9.25.12

AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY

IDENTIFY

acquire base materials engage client choose site

RESEARCH remove edge remove edge ANALYZE

identify research topic

site inventory

prepare GIS database

critical PRODUCE literature review regional analysis

develop prelimary community analysis program produce preliminary documents defend finalize scope of proposal project produce final documents

Figure 3.01: Project Workflow Diagram remove edge

16 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Stakeholders, Goals and Program Central to the downtown plan is recognition of Madison’s distinct neighborhoods. The Downtown Plan divides Madison into 12 districts and recognizes distinct In developing a project proposal, I reached out to a variety challenges and goals for those respective districts with of groups within the community. All of these groups will serve the understanding that each district has its own distinct as my client, representing a wide variety of interests within personality that contributes to its overall sense of place. the City of Madison. By preserving and building upon these unique identities, the Downtown Plan hopes to work within individual neighborhoods to identify resident’s long term goals for their Primary Client: City of Madison communities. (City of Madison, 2012). Planning Department In my initial client meeting with City of Madison Planner The 2012 Downtown Plan separates the area known as Rebecca Cnare and City of Madison Historic Preservation Mansion Hill into two distinctive districts: Mansion Hill and Planner Amy Scanlon, I was introduced to the city staff’s Langdon Street. In both areas, the plan acknowledges efforts in developing a conceptual vision for the Langdon/ the historic nature of the neighborhood, but describes Mansion Hill Neighborhoods. Rebecca Cnare, explained her differences in the areas that require different approaches role in developing the Downtown Plan, which the planning to future development. The plan acknowledges that department sees as teh model for which to develop the Langdon Street area will continue to be utilized as a Madison’s Isthmus. primarily student neighborhood and that selective infill that includes larger scale apartment buildings could be a part of the areas future. In the eastern Mansion Hill district, Downtown Plan the plan encourages historical preservation and proposes The 2012 Downtown Plan is the fourth in a series of encouraging selective residential infill that is consistent with planning efforts that date back to John Nolen’s original the scale of the historic buildings. In both areas, large scale plan, Madison A Model City (1910). Since then, the commercial development is discouraged (City of Madison, Proposal for Downtown Madison (1970) and Downtown 2012, Cnare 2013). 2000 (1989) have provided a general framework that has guided development in the city of Madison. The 2011 downtown plan seeks to provide a coherent vision of what the city should become. The plan focuses on goals that the city hopes to achieve in the next thirty years and proposes projects that could best carry out these goals (City of Madison, 2012, Cnare 2013).

The Downtown Plan was an opportunity to gather resident opinions about what they would like happen to their neighborhoods. The plan relies heavily on community input and is used less as a prescriptive document to shape development and more as a generalized proposal to encourage a succinct long term vision for Madison’s downtown.

Stakeholders, Goals and Program 17 James Edgewater Phase 3 Madison Park Verex Plaza National Hotel UW Gaurdian Lifesaving Life Alumni Park and Memorial Union

N Pinckney Street

N. CarollCarroll Street Street

N Henry Street Street Henry Henry N N

Phase 1 N Francis Street

N Lake Street Phase 2 Lakeshore Path The most dynamic change proposed in the city plan calls Legend for a complete revitalization of Mansion Hill’s lakefront. Currently, the extensive private property along Lake Public Easment Mendota limits access to the waterfront. Over the last hundred years, planners and residents have acknowledged Private Property Madison’s lack of connection to its lakes. In John Nolan’s, Madison, a model city, Nolen discusses theimportance of securing lake frontages for the public in an effort to create a four-lake park district around Madison. (City of Madison, James Edgewater 2011, Cnare 2013). Madison Park Verex Plaza National Hotel UW In the 1970s, plans for public access to Lake Mendota were Gaurdian Lifesaving considered when the Edgewater Hotel and Verex Plaza Life Alumni Park were constructed in Mansion Hill. When these buildings and Memorial were built, the city of Madison required that the developers Union provide public easements to the lake at these properties. While no succinct plan for a large scale revitalization of the waterfront was considered, residents hoped that public N Pinckney Street N. Caroll Street

ownership of the land could lead to a large scale project in N Henry Street Henry N the future (Cnare 2013). Street Henry N N Francis Street The current Downtown Plan seeks to create a renewed interest in developing Mansion Hill and Langdon’s lakefront. N Lake Street The plan proposes extending the existing lakeshore bicycle/ pedestrian path from the UW-Madison Memorial Union to James Madison Park. By purchasing additionalLegend lakefront easements, the city could provide enough land to develop a 10-12 foot bicycle- pedestrian path alongCity Owned the Easment shore of Lake Mendota. Currently the city owns rights to the Verex Plaza UW Lifesaving land surrounding Verex Plaza, the Edgewater Private Property Hotel and at the ends of Francis, Henry and Carroll Streets. (Figure 4.01) If this project were to move along, the city would need to purchase easements for the remaining mile of property along Lake Mendota. While this initially appears to be a difficult task, the city staff acknowledged the importance of understanding this path in a larger context of creating a better network of bicycle and pedestrian connectivity downtown. The lakeshore path currently runs nearly three miles from the edge of picnic point to Memorial

18 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Figure 4.01: City Owned Easments Union. By creating a mile-long segment through Mansion Hill, an entire four miles of Lake Mendota’s shore would provide public access to the lakes while connecting the existing bike paths to Madison larger bicycle network.

Langdon Inner Block Path In addition to developing a Lakefront Path, the Downtown Plan proposes an inner-block path between Langdon James Edgewater Street and Lake Mendota. Since the construction of the first Madison Park Verex Plaza National Hotel greek lodges in the neighborhood, an unofficial network of UW Gaurdian alleyways has connected five blocks of residences within Lifesaving Life Alumni Park the Langdon area. The narrow alleyways consist of both city and Memorial owned streets and private driveways. Some areas provide vehicular access while other areas are limited only to Union pedestrians. Students generally walk to campus navigating through an array of private and public alleyways paths and parking lots The network, referred to by the fraternity N Pinckney Street

N. Caroll Street community as “the hoch” , traverses over broken asphalt, N Henry Street Henry N N Henry Street Henry N gravel paths overflowing parking lots. N Francis Street In developing the Downtown Plan, the City of Madison N Lake Street acknowledged the potential to improve safety in this area. The multimodal nature of the alleys creates potential conflicts between pedestrians, vehicles and bicyclists. A multimodal path that improves visibility in the area, directs Legend traffic and creates physical cues that limit pedestrian vehicular conflicts would improve safety in the area. City Owned Easment UW Lifesaving National Guardian Life Likewise, adding lighting to the network would insure a Private Property greater sense of security in the neighborhood at night. Taken as a whole, the downtown’s plan for a midblock path proposes a “living street” concept where vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure are interwoven into a larger network of public space. The network would connect to the proposed lakefront path, which would in turn form a piece of Madison’s larger downtown parks and open space system (City of Madison, 2011, Cnare and Scanlon 2013).

Stakeholders, Goals and Program 19 1000 Friends of Wisconsin: Madison Trust For Historic Preservation

Goals Goals -Improve Walkability -Create public infrastructure that complements historic -Make Langdon and Mansion Hill a City of Madison features of neighbhorhood destination -Explore Alternatives for Housing Infill

1000 Friends of Wisconsin, a non profit, environmental The Madison Trust for historic Preservation is an independent, advocacy group based in Madison, WI that focuses on nonprofit, community-supported organization dedicated sustainable development research and land use policy. I to the conservation of Madison’s historic places through invited Matt Covert Green Downtown Program Manager for advocacy and education. In the last several years, the 1000 friends of Wisconsin to be a stakeholder in my project. agency has played an important role in ever-changing neighborhood, serving as the first line of defense against the In client meeting with Matt Covert, I discussed the proposals demolition of historic structures in the Langdon community. to Langdon and Mansion Hill layed out in the Downtown Currently the organization is working to write legislation to Plan. Overall, Matt was very enthusiastic about that plans establish Langdon as a local historic district. I approached goals. As a researcher who focuses on walkability, Matt’s Jason Tish, Executive Director of the Madison Trust For Historic primarily suggestions were to incorporate wayfinding, Preservation to be a stakeholder in my project. particularly in the Langdon midblock path, and to attempt to draw people from outside of the neighborhood to the I discussed the Lakefront Path and Langdon midblock path area. By installing signage and physical cues that make proposal layed out in the Downtown Plan with Jason. He, wayfinding easier, Matt hopes that the Langdon area could again was enthusiastic about the plan. His major suggestions attract people who don’t live in the neighborhood . were focused on the aesthetic quality of the proposed infrastructure. He made the point that the current alleyways between Langdon Street and Lake Mendota, developed Likewise, creating unique designs that reinforce the unique gradually over-time and the organic form and chaotic European streetscape aesthetic in the inner-block path layout of the spaces tell the story of how the neighborhood would create a greater draw for people from around the developed. Ultimately, he suggested that the aesthetic city and region. Matt suggested creating a walking tour with of any public infrastructure in the area should be played signage describing the historic nature of the area within the down to allow the unique architecture to speak for itself. inner block path. This would reinforce district identity and By subduing the aesthetic of the roads and landscape, help to brand the area as a historic district. Jason argued that you could ultimately tell the story of the organic patterns and forms that were created over time in the landscape. Likewise, Jason made the point that the aesthetic of the bicycle infrastructure along Lake Mendota should also be somewhat subdued. In this space, he acknowledged that the views to Lake Mendota should be the central focus and that public infrastructure should create a strong connection to the lake.

20 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Our discussion about property redevelopment within to care about preservation advocacy in the neighborhood. Langdon turned to issues relating to what properties Jason Connor pointed out that many students, (only living in views as having potential for redevelopment. Overall, Jason the neighborhood for four years) are often apathetic wants to prevent the demolition of historic structures in the to preservation issues and have little knowledge or neighborhoods, but sees opportunities for infill on properties appreciation for the historic nature of their neighborhood. that do not contribute to the historic character of the neighborhood. He pointed out the Steve Brown Apartment My conversation with Connor was also very helpful in Building at 126 Langdon Street as a prime example of a site understanding the funding structures that help finance to be redeveloped. The eight story residential tower built Greek life and ultimately control the care and preservation in the 1970s has sat vacant for the past decade. The large of Fraternities and Sororities in Langdon. As Connor monolithic structure could be demolished and replaced explained, a majority of improvements to Greek buildings with a building that both fits better into the character of the comes from funds from Alumni of the chapters. Ultimately neighborhood and creates more revenue for the property the care and preservation of these properties comes down owner. to funding from alumni and chapter residents’ care for their building. According to Connor, a wide range of funding Ultimately, my meeting with Jason informed my from alumni for various chapters, as well as wide range of understanding of the historical significance of the attitudes towards the care of the buildings characterize neighborhood, while of framing a discussion of how to the different greek lodges the neighborhood. While some design with a sensitivity to context. Sororities or Fraternities have a very supportive alumni network who provide substantial financial support, others lack significant funding. Likewise, some lodges are much Our Historic Campus more ambitious in their care for properties than others. -Understand Financial Realities of Greek Institutions -Create vision to help promote preservation advocacy Overall, my discussion with Connor underlined the potential for public infrastructure to reinforce the unique community Our Historic Campus (OHC) is a student organization at identity that exists in Langdon. Connor was excited the University of Wisconsin- Madison formed in 2012 as about the proposals discussed in the Downtown Plan and a response to proposed construction in the Langdon acknowledged that further development of a cohesive neighborhood. Consisting primarily of fraternity and sorority vision for the neighborhood would help in creating more members, the organization has been working with Madison student interest in planning the future of the neighborhood. Trust for Historic Preservation to develop local historic district status within the Langdon neighborhood. Through its mission, the organization hopes to expand preservation - advocacy across campus and make all students aware of the importance of conserving historic places in student neighborhoods of Madison.

I met with Connor Nett, founder and president of OHC to talk about preservation in the Langdon Neighborhood. Connor discussed the inherent difficulty in getting students

Stakeholders, Goals and Program 21 Literature Review

[Kevin] “Lynch described layering as 1850s-1890s ‘ a deliberate device of aesthetic expression—the visible accumulation 1850s-1890s‘Mansion Hill’ of overlapping traces from successive ‘Mansion Hill’ periods—each trace modifying and being modified by the new additions to produce something like a collage of time.’” (Lynch 1972 as cited in Howett, 1890s-1950s 2000) 1890s-1950s‘Greek Row’ ‘Greek Row’ Lynch’s poetic definition of “layering” as it relates to cultural landscapes, provides a meaningful method to think about the balance between preservation and new development. According to this view, preservation should not simply try to restore areas to their former ‘ideal’ state, but instead should incorporate development that allows for the full story of the landscape to be told. By balancing a respect for context with a desire to improve the site to accommodate modern users, designers can create a truly 1960s-1970s meaningful sense of place. ‘High1960s-1970s Rise Hill’ Lake Mendota In developing my design for Mansion Hill and Langdon ‘High Rise Hill’ districts, I hope to celebrate the fascinating history of the Lake Mendota area, while building new uses that will improve the area for the future. This will be accomplished by embracing 1970s-Present a landscape aesthetic that is complementary to historic structures in the neighborhood and incorporating New1970s-Present Development and Preservation programming that honors the cultural heritage of the site. New Development and Preservation

Figure 5.01 shows Mansion HIll and Langdon as a “Collage of Time”. Figure 5.01: Lynch’s “Collage of Time” in the Mansion Hill / Langdon Area

James Edgewater Hotel Madison Park Alumni Park, James 2014 and Beyond Memorial Union, Edgewater Hotel 22 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Madison Park EastAlumni Campus Park, Mall 2014 and Beyond Memorial Union, N Pinckney Street ? East Campus Mall

N. Caroll Street

N Henry Street Street Henry Henry N N N Pinckney Street ? N Francis Street

N. Caroll Street N Henry Street Henry N N Henry Street Henry N N Lake Street N Francis Street

N Lake Street “In every city, some neighborhoods are in decline and others are being born anew. Ecologists tell us that these changing patterns of land use are part of a repeating cycle of invasion and succession. People move from one section of the city to another as work, entertainment and shopping locations change. As people move, real estate values in some neighborhoods decline as residents sell their properties or rent to populations that cannot afford more desirable locations. Neglect overtakes the area. Houses and businesses are abandoned. Later, a new cycle begins. Other looking for affordable and decent housing move in, followed by a second wave of people seeking architectural distictinction and possibly a sense of community…Blaming preservation for gentrification is an oversimplification of a highly complex problem. Displacement and lack of affordable housing are the result of market forces and uncaring owners, not the preservation of old buildings.” -Lena Confresi and Rosetta Radke (2003)

Cofresi and Radke’s discussion of gentrification as a natural of buildings occur in a neighborhood that has been cycle of renewal and decline provides an interesting insight made up of a primarily transient student population? Or, into the potential for preservation in the Mansion Hill and is preservation only possible when students move out and Langdon Districts. Made up primarily of student renters single-family home owner restore their properties? and fraternity and sorority housing, many who live in the neighborhoods do not own their own properties. Neglect Given the heritage of Greek life in the Langdon Districts, and by renters and lack of maintenance by uncaring owners Langdon and Mansion Hill’s proximity to the UW-Campus, have allowed for the gradual decline of properties in the I do not think demographics in the neighborhood will neighborhood. Contending that these properties and drastically change. Though owner occupied rentals could blighted and cannot be restored, developers argue for improve the condition of historic buildings, the community demolition of these buildings. will remain a primarily a student neighborhood. Ultimately, this leads the issue of preservation to neighborhood The current demographic makeup of Mansion Hill and residents, property owners, and city government. While Langdon districts poses questions about the potential for all three must be involved, the role of city government in preservation in Mansion Hill and Langdon. Can restoration developing infrastructure offers potential as a strong catalyst for preservation. By providing an-depth exploration of the potential for public space within the neighborhoods, my project hopes to explore the possibilities of the role of public infrastructure in shaping preservation efforts.

Literature Review 23 Excerpt from Abstract: “Off-campus student accommodation in the form of shared rental housing has become increasingly significant in the UK, with studies suggesting that this is having important consequences for housing markets in university towns. However, the continuing expansion of higher education, the increased involvement of private investment capital, and changing student demands are seen to be encouraging a move away from houses in multiple occupation towards purpose-built accommodation… such purpose-built developments are implicated in processes of urban gentrification, having potentially major consequences for studentification and community cohesion in British cities.” - Phil Hubbard (2009) The Geographies of Studentification and the Purpose-Built Environment

Hubbard’s discussion of the changing landscape of student 1.If we continue to replace existing rental housing with high- housing in the UK echoes the issues facing the student rise developments, will student neighborhoods retain their housing market at UW-Madison. The Increased availability character and social cohesion? Does social cohesion exist of private investment capital andincreased demand in student neighborhoods to begin with? for high-end rental housing for both students and young professionals, has created a building boom in Madison in 2.Will a concentration of student housing in high-rise the past two decades. As large projects such as the Steve buildings effectively insolate students from the rest of Brown Lucky Building, prove their success as profitable Madison? Will we continue to see an integration of “town investments, they reinforce market demand, encouraging and gown” that mixes students and non-students in Madison more similar development in student areas of Madison. neighborhoods? Hubbard’s criticism of such projects in Britain, reject the economic success of these projects, ultimately identifying 3.Will the dominance of high-end student apartment the negative social implications of a switch from traditional buildings in Madison effectively price out students of lower smaller scale student rentals to larger rental highrises. These income, ultimately creating greater socio-economic new “purpose-built environments,” act as divisions among the UW-Madison community? insular, self-contained environments that have little interaction with their surrounding neighborhoods. This My design proposal for student housing in Mansion HIll and ultimately disconnects them from their Langdon, will break away from the purpose-built highrise communities, creating less social cohesion among model and will instead focus on a design that seemlessly neighbors. transitions public to private space, ultimatley attempting to enhance the sense of community throughout the While the implications of this argument are unclear for a neighborhood. primarily greek residential neighborhood such as Langdon, Hubbard’s discussion raisesseveral questions for the future development of Madison’s rental housing market. These questions include:

24 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Project Type and Professional Focus

Building on the Downtown Plan students and understanding the needs and concerns of this often under-represented group. The proposals for Langdon and Mansion Hill laid out in the 2011 Downtown Plan provides a promising starting point Professional Focus: Historic Preservation in identifying my project focus. As part of a planning The unique cultural history of Mansion Hill and Langdon process over thirty years in the making, the Downtown Neighborhoods reflects a constantly evolving landscape Plan incorporates extensive input from a wide spectrum that has changed as Madison has developed. Today of community members, design professionals and policy modern pressures of development continue to pose makers. As a result, the proposal attempts to balance challenges to the community. The field of historic community interests to the best of its ability. Ultimately, preservation offers an insightful frame of reference for I believe that this thoughtful balance of community which to inform many of the design challenges in the stakeholders is consistent with my project focus of striving neighborhood. As preservationists attempt to prevent balance preservation with new development. Though the the demolition of historic buildings, new questions arise proposal recommends establishing a local historic district in about what type of development should occur in the the Langdon neighborhood, it also acknowledges a need neighborhood. for density within Madison’s Isthmus. Public infrastructure projects have the opportunity to create The City of Madison’s vision for extension of the Lakeshore interest in the neighborhood while celebrating the historical Path from Memorial Union to James Madison park and character of the area. The inclusion of interpretive signage its plans for the Langdon Inner block path provides an provides opportunities to raise public awareness about excellent framework for creating public infrastructure that the historic nature of the neighborhood while effectively links the neighborhoods of central Madison. The proposed branding the neighborhood as a unique and valuable extension of Lakeshore path would further enhance community assett.(Araoz, 2008, Facca and Aldrich, 2011, ) Madison’s already impressive bike system, while the proposed inner block path could create a destination for visitors to the city of Madison. Additionally, by allowing new infrastructure to aesthetically complement exisitng structures, the design can reinforce the Balancing Community Interests historic character of the area (Araoz, 2008).

In including other citizen groups as my client in this project, Modern best managment practices offer opportunities I’ve attempted to gain a broader understanding of the to enhance the functionality of the site. Opportunities to stakeholders that would be effected by this project. My enhance stormwater mangement, improve accessibiltiy discussions with Jason Tish of the Madison Trust for Historic and improve saftey in the area can be incorperated into preservation underlined the growing influence of people site design, while incorperating an aesthetic that is sensitive who care about and advocate for preservation issues within to the context of the site. the city of Madison. My conversations with Matt Covert of 1000 Friends of Wisconsin exposed me to new perspectives Ultimately this focus on context sensitive design is paramount about how the neighborhood could be improved to serve to how I will approach my site. The existing character that as a home to students, but to serve as a destination to the makes the place unique already exists. New infrastructure rest of the Madison community. Connor Nett of Our Historic has the potential to capitalize off of it. Campus, emphasized the importance of designing for

25 Site and Community Scale Analysis Redevelopment of Underperforming Properties My site and community scale analysis justifies the placement of my program elements. Stemming from client input, as well Langdon and Mansion Hill contain a variety of Landuse Types (Figure as the proposal laid out in the Downtown Plan, my project 9.9). Though dominated primarily by multi-family residential, there is a focuses on three central program elements highlighted in significant presence of Sorority and Fraternity Housing along Langdon Figure 9.8. Street. A significant portion of coops also exist, concentrated heaviest in the Langdon portion of the site. 1 Redevelop underperforming, non-historic properties in Langdon and Mansion Hill to Analyzing the year properties were built (Figure 9.10) highlights the match historic character of the neighborhood. difference in quality of the properties developed in the 1960s and 1970s

compared to the original historic properties of the neighborhood. The Extend the Lakeshore Path from Memorial Union 2 massing and height of these buildings has a significant effect on the visual to James Madison Park quality, historic character, and sense of scale within the neighborhood.

Develop a Langdon Inner Block Path between 3 As neighborhoods on the national register of historic places, Langdon and Langdon Street and Lake Mendota Mansion Hill Districts contain properties that are considered to contribute to the historic character of the district. Evaluated based on criteria established All three program elements discussed in this section include by the National Parks Service, these buildings are meant to be preserved an evaluation of a precedent study that directly relates to as they reflect the cultural heritage of the district. Looking at properties my proposal. that are not considered to be contributing to the historic character of the area, (Figure 9.11) highlights properties considered “non-contributing.” Comparing this to the year built data, a clear relationship is seen between noncontributing properties, and the large scale high-rise developments built in the 1960s and 1970s.

James Edgewater Hotel Madison Park Alumni Park, Memorial Union, East Campus Mall

N Pinckney Street

N. Caroll Street

N Henry Street Street Henry Henry N N N Francis Street

N Lake Street

Figure 6.01: Proposed Program Elements 26 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Langdon Street

Langdon Street

N. Henry Street Street Henry Henry N. N. N. Carroll Street Carroll N.

E. Gilman StreetStreet Carroll N.

Wisconsin Avenue State Street N. Pinckney Street N. Butler Street

E. Gorham Street

E. Johnson Steet

N. Hamiliton Street

Figure 6.02: Land Use Inventory

Land Use Langdon Street LangdonCommercial Street Institutional/ Multi Family Single Family Housing Coop Greek Hotel/ Religious Residential Residential Housing Bed and Breakfast

Langdon Street Langdon Street

N. Henry Street Street Henry Henry N. N. N. Carroll Street Carroll N.

E. Gilman StreetStreet Carroll N.

Wisconsin Avenue

N. Pinckney Street

N. Henry Street Henry N. State Street Street Henry N. N. Carroll Street Carroll N.

N. Butler Street E. Gilman StreetStreet Carroll N.

Wisconsin Avenue State Street N. Pinckney Street N. Butler Street E. Gorham Street

E. Johnson Steet E. Gorham Street

N. Hamiliton Street E. Johnson Steet

Figure 6.03: Year Built Inventory N. Hamiliton Street Langdon Street Year Built 1850-1900 1901-1950 1951-1975 1976-2013 Langdon Street

Langdon Street

N. Henry Street Street Henry Henry N. N. N. Carroll Street Carroll N.

E. Gilman StreetStreet Carroll N.

Wisconsin Avenue State Street N. Pinckney Street Land Use N. Butler Street Langdon Street

Institutional/ Multi Family Single Family Housing Coop Greek Hotel/

N. Henry Street Henry N. CommercialStreet Henry N. N. Carroll Street Carroll N.

E. Gilman StreetStreet Carroll N.

Wisconsin Avenue State Street Religious Residential Residential N. Pinckney Street Housing Bed and E. Gorham Street N. Butler Street Breakfast E. Johnson Steet E. Gorham Street N. Hamiliton Street E. Johnson Steet

N. Hamiliton Street Figure 6.04: Non-Contributing Properties

Non-Contributing Langdon Street Properties Not Contributing to Properties Character of National Historic District

Year Built Langdon Street

N. Henry Street Henry N.

1850-1900Street Henry N. 1901-1950 1951-1975 1976-2013 N. Carroll Street Carroll N.

E. Gilman StreetStreet Carroll N.

Wisconsin Avenue State Street N. Pinckney Street N. Butler Street

E. Gorham Street

E. Johnson Steet

N. Hamiliton Street

Community and Site Scale Analysis 27 Non-Contributing Properties Not Contributing to Properties Character of National Historic District Considering a complete inventory of the site at a Additionally, the Lakefront lot adjacent to the National community scale, Figure 9.12 identifies four non-contributing Guardian Life Building is unused, and currently consists of a 134 Langdon Street properties that to be redeveloped. Demolition and new surface lot and highly erosive wooded slope. While a unique construction on the lots at Henry Gilman Apartments and boathouse surrounded by overgrown trees gives this site 134 Langdon Street offer opportunities to improve the an interesting secluded character, the inclusion of public character of the neighborhood while increasing the rental waterfront access at the adjacent Edgewater Hotel Site revenue generated by the properties. The 7-story, 134 has the potential to spur development on this underutilized Langdon Street Apartment Building has sat vacant for the property. The expansion of the Lakeshore path provides past 10 years and is used by the Madison Police Department opportunities to connect this site to the waterfront and for SWOT team drills. Likewise, the Henry Gilman Apartments create unique public access to the Lake. building is significantly underutilized, and redevelopment on it could result in significantly higher rental income.

Buildings consistent with the scale character of the neighborhood could replace the current high rise properties. Nevertheless, increasing the revenue generating potential of these properties would likely require the buildings to maintain the same number of rental units., If building heights were to decrease to 5-6 stories and building footprints would increase, an equal number of rental units could be National Guardian Life Shoreline established. By pushing building setbacks up to the lot line, Henry Gilman Apartments establishing subsurface parking, and lowering the buildings height, the property would contribute more to the historic character of the neighborhood, while increasing rental income and expanding the City of Madison tax base.

A parking lot that currently serves Verex Plaza could be redeveloped for multi-family residential use. The high value property is in a desirable location adjacent to James Madison Park and is underutilized as a surface lot. A four story multifamily residential property with subsurface parking could enhance the character of the neighborhood, and provide housing for non-student renters. In accordance with my regional design goals. a substantial portion of units in this development should be publically subsidized.(See Regional Analysis and Recommedations).

Figure 6.06: Proposed Sites for Redevelopment

Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture 134 Langdon Street 134 Langdon Street Langdon Street National Guardian Life Water Access HenryHenry GilmanGilman Verex Plaza Apartments Parking Lot

Langdon Street

N. Henry Street Street Henry Henry N. N. N. Carroll Street Carroll N.

E. Gilman StreetStreet Carroll N.

Wisconsin Avenue State Street N. Pinckney Street N. Butler Street

E. Gorham Street

E. Johnson Steet

Properities to Redevelop N. Hamiliton Street

National Guardian Life Shoreline Proposed Properties to be RedevelopedVerex Plaza Parking Lot

Site and Community Scale Analysis 29 Extend the Lakeshore Path from James Madison Park Edgewater Hotel Memorial Union to James Madison Park

Current and proposed public open space provide opportunities to connect park space in downtown Madison (Figure 6.07)

James Madison Park serves as one of Madison’s most popular parks and is frequented by a diverse array of Madison residents.

The planned public water access and public terrace on the roof of Edgewater Hotel will create enlivened open space in an area that has lacked park amenities. With the development of the Lakeshore path, the space will serve as an activity node that connects pedestrian access to James Wisconsin Avenue and the Capitol Square. Edgewater Hotel Madison Park Over a decade of public open space investment on the Alumni Park, eastern portion of the UW-Madison Campus has led to the development of a modern urban open-space network. Memorial Union, Renovations of the iconic Memorial Union Terrace, the East Campus Mall redevelopment of State Street Mall and Library Mall and the creation of East Campus Mall and UW Alumni Park offer an opportunity to connect the lakeshore path to an extensive network of modern green infrastructure. The existing N Pinckney Street popularity of these spaces and the amount of use on the existing lakeshore path ensures that a Lakeshore Path from N. Caroll Street

Memorial Union to James Madison Park would be widely N Henry Street Henry N used and appreciated by the public. Street Henry N N Francis Street

N Lake Street

Figure 6.07: Proposed Open Space Connections

Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Edgewater Hotel Alumni Park Memorial Union Terrace

James Edgewater Hotel Madison Park Alumni Park, Memorial Union, East Campus Mall

N Pinckney Street

N. Caroll Street

N Henry Street Street Henry Henry N N N Francis Street

N Lake Street

Site and Community Scale Analysis 31 Currently, all the ends of streets bordering Lake Mendota N. Carroll Street are owned by the City of Madison. (Figure 9.16) Although these areas are officially considered public spaces, public access to the waterway is virtually nonexistent. A variety of conditions characterize these areas (Figure 6.10) .

Figure 6.10 identifies proposed connections to from the street ends to the proposed Lakeshore Path, taking into account changes in topography and current shoreline conditions.

N. Pinckney Street

N. Pinckney Street

Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture N. Henry Street N. Francis Street N. Lake Street

Bicycle Access Bicycle Access Stairway Access Bicycle Access Stairway Access

Pedestrian Only Access Bicycle Access Stairway Access Pedestrian Only Access

Stairway Access Pedestrian Only Access

Pedestrian Only Access Edgewater Hotel Edgewater Hotel James Alumni Park, Alumni Park, Madison Park James Memorial Union, EdgewaterMadison Hotel Park East Campus MallMemorial Union, East Campus Mall N Pinckney Street James N.N Carrol Carrol Street Street N Henry Street Alumni Park, N Pinckney Street N.N Carrol Carrol Street Street MadisonEdgewater Park Hotel N Henry StreetMemorial Union, N Pinckney Street East Campus MallN Francis Street James N Pinckney Street Alumni Park, N Pinckney Street N Francis StreetN Lake Street Madison Park N.N Carrol Carrol Street Street N Henry Street Memorial Union, N Lake Street East Campus Mall N Pinckney Street N Francis Street N Pinckney Street N.N Carrol Carrol Street Street N Henry Street N Lake Street

N Pinckney Street N Francis Street Memorial Union N Lake Street Memorial Union Figure 6.10: Proposed Public Access

Memorial Union 33

Memorial Union James Madison Park A Edgewater Hotel B C Alumni Park D and Memorial Union N. Pinckney Street

Shoreline Conditions N. Caroll Street N Henry Street Henry N N Henry Street Henry N E A variety of shoreline conditions characterize Langdon Street area shoreline. (Figure 6.11) identifies various building N Francis Street setbacks and slopes along the shoreline. N Lake Street

A. Verex Plaza B . Acacia Fraternity House C. Chi Psi Fraternity House D. Psi Epsilon Fraternity House E. Phi Gamma Delta Fraternity 3% Slope 33% Slope 35% Slope 30% Slope 3% Slope

103’ 55’ 85’ 115’ 50’

James Madison Park A Edgewater Hotel B C Alumni Park D and Memorial Union N. Pinckney Street

N. Caroll Street N Henry Street Henry N N Henry Street Henry N E

N Francis Street

N Lake Street

Figure 6.11: Shoreline Conditions A. Verex Plaza B . Acacia Fraternity House C. Chi Psi Fraternity House D. Psi Epsilon Fraternity House E. Phi Gamma Delta Fraternity 3% Slope 33% Slope 35% Slope 3% Slope Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture 30% Slope

103’ 55’ 85’ 115’ 50’ James UW Lifesaving Edgewater Madison Park Hotel Alumni Park/ Proposed Shoreline Treatments Memorial N Pinckney Street N. Carrol Street The variety of shoreline conditionsN Henry Street on Lake Mendota would Union

N Pinckney Street require multiple design solutions. Figure 6.12 identifiesN Francis Street four N Pinckney Street options of N.construction Caroll Street of a path. On areas with a shallow N Lake Street

Edgewater

N Henry Street Street Street Street Henry Henry Henry Henry N N N N N Henry Street Henry N UW Lifesaving enough slope and a large setback, an overlandJames path could N Francis StreetMadison Park Hotel be constructed over the existing landscape. In other areas, a boardwalk would could suspend the path over the water.N Lake Street Alumni Park/ Memorial N Pinckney Street N. Carrol Street Infill of the existing lakeshore in areas without a significant N Henry Street Union setback or steep slopes could accommodate the lakeshore N Pinckney Street N Francis Street path;Overland cantilevered Path paths could also be used.Boardwalk N Pinckney Street

N. Caroll Street N Lake Street

N Henry Street Street Street Street Henry Henry Henry Henry N N N N N Henry Street Henry N N Francis Street

N Lake Street

Lake In ll Cantilever Overland Path Boardwalk

Lake In ll Cantilever

James UW Lifesaving Edgewater Madison Park Hotel Alumni Park/ Memorial N Pinckney Street N. Carrol Street N Henry Street Union

N Pinckney Street N Francis Street N Pinckney Street

N. Caroll Street N Lake Street

N Henry Street Street Street Street Henry Henry Henry Henry N N N N N Henry Street Henry N N Francis Street

N Lake Street

Figure 6.12: Proposed Shoreline Treatments Overland Path Boardwalk

35

Lake In ll Cantilever Develop a Public Inner-Block Path Between Langdon Street and Lake Mendota

A loose connection of streets, alleyways and paths already The connection of paths, roads and alleyways consists of makes up the area between Langdon Street and Lake both public and privately owned property. (Figure 6.14) Mendota. The narrow alleyways and unique architecture give this area a unique feeling that is reminiscent of a Figure 6.14 identifies the most common foot path route European Village (Figure 6.13). taken by students in the neighborhood. The hodge-podge of public and private paths is difficult to access in some areas and is not ADA accessible.

Villa Maria Howard Place

Lakelawn Place

Figure 6.13 Langdon Alleyways

36 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture 3 2 1

Existing Circulation 4 Private Vehicular Access Public Private Pedestrian Access Public Property

Public Vehicular Access Private Public Pedestrian Access Common Primary Pedestrian Route Student Route 1 2 N. Caroll Street 3 4 Iota Court

5 5 N. Henry Street

Place Place

Lakelawn Langdon Street Lakelawn Place Existing Circulation

Mendota Court

N. Francis Street Street Francis Francis N. N. N. Lake Street Howard Place Private Vehicular Access Private Pedestrian Access

Public Vehicular Access Public Pedestrian Access Langdon Street Primary Pedestrian Route Gorham Street N. Caroll Street

Johnson Street

Figure 6.14 Common Student Route Through Inner Block Path N

Iota Court

Site and Community Scale Analysis 37 N. Henry Street Place Place

Lakelawn Langdon Street Lakelawn Place

Mendota Court

N. Francis Street Street Francis Francis N. N.

N. Lake Street Howard Place

Langdon Street

Gorham Street

Johnson Street 32’-0”

Connecting Links

Figure 6.16 identifies three “problem areas” that are not currently ADA accessible and proposes solutions to construct a bike/pedestrian path in the neighborhood.

The Nottingham Coop connection (A) is currently on private property and would require easement acquisition by the city of Madison. The thirty-two foot clearance between two existing structures and 5’ of grade change poses grading challenges, but a 12’ bike/ pedestrian path could Nottingham Co-op Connection A be implemented to improve safety and accessibility in the area.

The public stairway at Lakelawn Place and N. Francis Streets (B) could be graded to include a bike path. Though the narrow gap between the two existing structures poses additional challenges, creating this link would further enhance bike connections from Langdon area residences to the Lakeshore Path.

The stairway in the current parking garage at the UW Lowell Center (C) is a popular route for UW students commuting to class. Redevelopment of the Lowell Center and removal Lakelawn Place and N. Francis Streets B of the parking garage provides opportunities to create a unique connection between the building and public bike/ pedestrian infrastructure

Lowell Center Parking Garage C

Figure 6.16: Construction Challenges in Langdon Inner Block Path

38 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture ADA Inaccessible C B A

ADA InaccessibleADA Inaccessible Common Student Route A N. Caroll Street

N. Caroll Street

B ExistingIotaIota CourtCourt Circulation

N. Henry Street Private Vehicular Access

IotaIota CourtCourt

Place C Place Private Pedestrian Access

N. Henry Street

Place Public Vehicular Access Place PublicLangdon Pedestrian Street Access LakelawnLakelawnLakelawn Place Mendota Court

Primary Pedestrian Route Langdon Street N. Francis Street Francis N. N. Francis Street Francis N. LakelawnLakelawnLakelawn Place

N. Lake Street Howard Place Mendota Court N. Francis Street Francis N. N. Francis Street Francis N. N. Caroll Street

N. Lake Street Howard Place

Langdon Street Figure 6.16: Construction Challenges in Langdon Inner Block Path Langdon Street N

Gorham Street Gorham Street Site and Community Scale Analysis 39 Iota Court

N. Henry Street

Place Place Johnson Street Johnson Street

Lakelawn Langdon Street Lakelawn Place

Mendota Court

N. Francis Street Street Francis Francis N. N.

N. Lake Street Howard Place

Langdon Street

Gorham Street

Johnson Street Regional Inventory and Analysis

Bicycle Network Expanding the Lakeshore path from Memorial Union to James Madison offers opportunities to create greater -Expand Linkages within the City of Madison linkages between the Isthmus residential neighborhoods and the UW-Madison campus. As a primarily student Major developments in the past twenty years has led to an neighborhood, many residents in Langdon and Mansion Hill impressive bicycle system within the city of Madison. (Figure already commute by bike. Linking the neighborhoods by 9.1) Considered a Platinum bicycle city by the League of bike trail offers opportunities to increase and improve the American Bicyclists, the city contains over 46 miles bike trails quality ofl biking within the city of Madison and 112 miles of bike lanes. The Lakeshore path campus is one of the city’s most popular paths, connecting downtown Madison to the UW-Campus and the Lakeshore Nature Preserve (Figure 9.2 )

Lakeshore Nature Preserve University of Wisconsin- Madison Near East Side Neighborhoods

State Street Proposed Existing Extension Lakeshore Path

Willy Street

Proposed Bike Path State Capitol Existing Bike Lane Isthmus Student Neighborhoods Existing Bike Lane B-cycle Rental Location Park / Open Space Figure 7.01: Proposed Bicycle Connections 0 1 miles N

40 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Cherokee Marsh

Warner Park

East Town Mall

Pheasant Branch Conservacy

University of Wisconsin- Madison State Street Atwood/ Shenks Corners Willy Street

State Capitol

Monroe Street

Henry Vilas Zoo

Proposed Bike Path Proposed Bike Path Existing Bike Lane Existing Bike Lane Existing Bike Lane Existing Bike Lane B-cycle Rental Location 2 B-cycle Rental Location Park / Open Space Park / Open Space 0 1 Figure 7.02: Madison Bicycle System miles N

Regional Analysis and Design Strategy 41 Proposed Existing University of Wisconsin DormitoryMadison’s Building Boom

Student Oriented Apartment Madison’s Isthmus has seen a tremendous boom in high new development in existing urban areas often comes rise construction over the past 24 years (Figure 8.08).. As at the expense of the historic housing stock. Ultimately, Madison grows, planners have advocated increased density historic structures can be razed as a justification for Apartment Building in Madison’s Isthmus and surrounding areas. Adopting a the environmental efficiency, increased tax base, and “Smart Growth” approach to development, the city hopes economic impact created by new construction. Condominiums that dense development can maximize resources efficiently, while concentrating infrastructure in a concentrated, environmentallyMiles efficient urban core. 0 0.25 0.5 While1 the goals of this approach are well-intentioned,

Site Boundary

28 32 220 30 18 70 33 32 30 65 52 408 172 28 122 26 67 13 22 UniversityUNIVERSITY of OFWisconsin- 77 38 15 11 26 50 44 15 45 34 MadisonWISCONSIN MADISON 250 111 27 115 317 48 84 64 350 88 9 127 117 5 8 198 97 52 600 77 20 162 40 39 12 17 64 80 415 28 35 57 83 Proposed Existing 52 40 20 75 University of Wisconsin Dormitory

11660 Student Oriented Apartment

Apartment Building 57 Condominiums N Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 Figure 7.03: Multi-Family Residential Construction 1990-2014 Site Boundary 42 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture

28 32 220 30 18 70 33 32 30 65 52 408 172 28 122 26 67 13 22 UniversityUNIVERSITY of OFWisconsin- 77 38 15 11 26 50 44 15 45 34 MadisonWISCONSIN MADISON 250 111 27 115 317 48 84 64 350 88 9 127 117 5 8 198 97 52 600 77 20 162 40 39 12 17 64 80 415 28 35 57 83 52 40 20 75

11660

57 Condominium Waterfront Apartments, 2014 142 at Lakelawn, 2013

The Hub, State Street, 2014 U Square. 2009

Figure 7.04: New Residential Construction

Regional Analysis and Design Strategy 43 xdxC Capital View Preservation Limit Additional Height permitted under special circumstances Site Boundary Density 4 -Increase density in Isthmus neighborhoods that lack quality 10 historic structures 5+2 5 6 5+2 6 10 8 8 3 -Limit dense development in neighborhoods with quality 6 C 6 4 10 historic structures 6 C The 2011 Downtown Plan acknowledges the inherent 12 C tradeoff between new development and preservation 6 6 and attempts to balance the two competing interests. The 4+2 4 plan proposes maximum building heights for Madison’s 8+2 Isthmus (Figure 7.05). In Langdon and Mansion Hill, the plan 4+2 10 limits building heights to 5 stories, while in the Mifflin/Bassett 5 Legend Neighborhood, and the area surrounding Johnson Street, the plan acknowledges a need for more dense housing. 6 +2

0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles Figure 7.05: City of Madiison Downtown Plan- Proposed Building Heights

xdxC Capital View Preservation Limit Although there are historic structures built in the early 20th Additional Height permitted under century in the Mifflin Street area, neglect by property owners special circumstances Encourage Density Along E. Washington Ave has led to housing stock that is in relatively poor condition. While the “blighted property” argument could be used to Preserve Historic Housing Stock In Langdon/ Mansion HIll justify demolition of houses in Langdon and Mansion Hill, 10 4 generally the quality of original construction and care by 10 property owners is better in these neighborhoods. 5+2 5 6 5+2 6 10 8 8 3 6 C 6 4 10 6 C Maintain 12 Visibility C of Capitol 6 6 6 4 Extend 8+2 6 Story Limit 4+2 to W. Washington 10 10 5 Legend

6 +2 Encourage Density Along Park Street

0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles

Figure 7.06: Regional Design Recommendations- Proposed Building Heights

44 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture A- Park Street B. Johnson Street Bend SW of Capitol Square E. Washington Ave. Encourage Density Encourage

Preserve Housing Stock Encourage Density

In general, my proposal for density within Downtown Madison is consistent with the Downtown Plan I (Figures 7.05, 7.06). My proposal expands the 8 H D story limit in the Mifflin/ Bassett neighborhood to W. Washington Avenue, where the quality of the B housing stock is poor. Additionally, my regional design G C proposal advocates encouraging density in other surrounding districts. Namely, Park Street and Regent F Street have potential for increased density that could support both multifamily residential housing and A commercial retail development. Additionally, plans for Bus Rapid Transit and recent development within the former industrial corridor along East Washington Avenue could support high density on some lots provided that adaptive reuse of historic structures is a priority.

F. Vilas/ G. Regent/ H. Mansion HIll/ I. Third Lake Ridge/ Greenbush Dungeon Monroe Langdon

Preserve Housing Stock Housing Preserve Schenck/ Atwood Figure 7.07: Preservation / Density Tradeoff

Regional Analysis and Design Strategy 45 Affordable Housing Housing is a major expense of many students at UW- -Allow for a diversity of housing options that provide students Madison which contributes to the overall cost of college. If of all socio-economic statuses convenient access to rents continue to rise, along with increased tuition there is campus. potential for lower income students to effectively be priced out of the college experience. -Develop Subsidized housing to ensure quality public housing on the Isthmus My regional design proposal calls for the city to ensure a diversity of housing options within downtown Madison. With the rising cost of education in the United States, the Some students prefer to live in highrise apartments, others UW-Madison has attracted students nationwide with its prefer to live in low-rise apartments or rental houses. By relatively low tuition cost and high quality of education. providing a variety of different types of living options for While UW now has a more geographically diverse student students, the city and university can ensure a diverse range population than ever before, the university risks losing of housing prices that accommodate students of varying students of lower income. socio-economic statuses and preferences.

In the past twenty years, developers have capitalized off New high-end, highrise development has been occurring of the changing demographics of student population at primarily in areas immediately adjacent to UW – Madison UW- Madison. New highrise developments typically rent at (See Figure 7.03, pg 42). Development in these areas is a much higher rate than older smaller apartment buildings likely to continue, allowing the preservation of the existing or houses. Typically, highrise developments are dominated housing stock in areas farther away from campus. The by students from wealthy, out of state families, while smaller difference in rents in these two areas, may lead to the older buildings generally rent to more in-state students. trend of wealthier students living closer to campus than low income students. While ensuring socio-economic The boom in high-rent student housing has implications for diversity in the areas immediately surrounding campus the future demographics of UW-Madison and ultimately may be difficult, there should be an effort to preserve the poses larger questions about the role of public education affordability of housing in Downtown Madison. Students in the state of Wisconsin. The rising cost of college should be able to live in affordable housing within a twenty education accompanied by increasing rents for UW minute walk of campus. students increasingly limits the affordability of attending college. Wisconsin, a state with a strong tradition of public My proposal calls for the development of quality subsidized education, has traditionally embraced what University of housing in the Mansion Hill nieghborhood. The vacant Wisconsin President Charles Van Hise termed the “Wisconsin parking lot associated with Verex Plaza presents an Idea.” The philosophy, which advocates that the work of opportunity to redevelop the site to create affordable the University of Wisconsin should extend to every family housing for residents of the Isthmus. (See Figure 6.06 pg 29). in the state has played an influential role in the mission of City row apartments (Figure 7.08) provides an excellent the University of Wisconsin system. A central goal of this example the building form the development could take on. philosophy is that everyone, regardless of socioeconomic The complex, was constructed on the corner of Blair and status, should have equal access to quality education. Johnson Streets in 2010 and now provides both publically subsidized and non-subsidized rental housing.

46 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Figure 7.08: City Row Apartments

Regional Analysis and Design Strategy 47 Longfellow Street Woonerf Santa Monica, CA | Nelson Nygard Consulting Associaties -”Living street” serves as community space -encourages pedestrian use -stages stormwater

Precedent Study: Longfellow Street Woonerf, Santa Monica, CA |Nelson Nygard Consulting Associates Longfellow Street Woonerf PARKING The “Woonerf,” a GermanCUBBIES term for “living street” is Santa Monica, CA | Nelson Nygard Consulting Associaties defined as a street that is sharedMULTI-MODEL equally among cars, pedestrians and bicycles. STREET -”Living street” serves as community TRAFFIC CALMING CROSSING space As one of the few “living street” designs in the US, the Longfellow Street Woonerf transformed a crime ridden -encourages pedestrian use thoroughfare into a pedestrian friendly street network that serves as a community space. Raised pavers at -stages stormwater the street intersections calm traffic, while planting beds adjacent to the curbless street treat stormwater (Nelson Nygard Consulting Associates) . Longfellow Street Woonerf The existing network of informal roads and parking lots in the Langdon district could be enhanced to reduce Santa Monica, CA | Nelson Nygard Consultinglake Associaties runoff and provide pedestrian and bike space to neighborhood residents. -”Living street” serves as community Longfellowspace Street Woonerf -encouragesPARKING pedestrian use Santa Monica, CUBBIESCA | Nelson Nygard Consulting Associaties -stages MULTI-MODELstormwater STREET -”Living street” serves as community TRAFFIC CALMING CROSSING space -encourages pedestrian use -stages stormwater

Figure 8.01: Longfellow Street Woonerf PARKING CUBBIES MULTI-MODEL 48 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture STREET

TRAFFIC CALMING CROSSING PARKING CUBBIES MULTI-MODEL STREET

TRAFFIC CALMING CROSSING The three-mile long pedestrian walk- way that spans both sides of the Milwaukee River has served as a major force in redeveloping the city’s former industrial corridor. Various overlooks and cantilevered walkways create unique connections to the river, while highlighting the architecture of the city. On the Lake Mendota bike path, walkways cantilevered over the water could be used in areas The three-mile long pedestrian walk- way that spans both sides of the adjacent to steep cliffs or in areas Milwaukee River has served as a where the city lacks proper major force in redeveloping the easements. city’s former industrial corridor. Various overlooks and cantilevered walkways create unique The three-mile long pedestrian walk- way that spansconnections both sides of theto the river, while Milwaukee Riverhighlighting has served as the a architecture of the major forcecity. in redeveloping On the Lakethe Mendota bike city’s former industrial corridor. Milwaukee, WI | Endburg Anderson and Associates Various overlookspath, and walkways cantilevered cantilevered over walkways createthe water unique could be used in areas connections to the river, while highlightingadjacent the architecture to steep of the cliffs or in areas city. On thewhere Lake Mendota the city bike lacks proper -Three Mile Long Pedestrian path, walkwayseasements. cantilevered over the water could be used in areas adjacent to steep cliffs or in areas walkway in Downtown where the city lacks proper easements. Milwaukee Milwaukee, WI | Endburg Anderson and Associates Milwaukee, WI | Endburg Anderson and Associates Precedent Study: Milwaukee Riverwalk Milwaukee Wisconsin | Endburg Anderson and Associates -Three Mile-Three Long PedestrianMile Long Pedestrian -Various overlooksand cantilevered walkway in Downtown The three-mile long pedestrian walk-way that spans both walkway in Downtown walkways create unique connections sides of the Milwaukee River has served as a major force in redeveloping the city’s former industrial corridor. Various Milwaukee overlooks and cantilevered walkways create unique Milwaukee connections to the river, while highlighting the architecture to water of the city (Endburg Anderson and Associates). -Various overlooksand cantilevered On the Lake Mendota bike path, walkways cantilevered over the water could be used in areas adjacent to steep walkways create unique connections cliffs or in areas where the city lacks proper easements. -Various overlooksand cantilevered to water In addition to the types of shoreline treatment used in the -Similar shoreline treatments Milwaukee Riverwalk, the organization of the pedestrian walkways create unique connections network provides a beneficial precedent. The balance of activity nodes and circulation spaces create a path that is a -Similar toshoreline water treatments could be used on Lake Mendota functional circulation space enlivened with pedestrian life. could be used on Lake Mendota -Similar shoreline treatments could be used on Lake Mendota

Figure 8.02: Milwaukee Riverwalk

Precedent Studies 49 Harvard Graduate Student Housing at 29 Garden Street Cambridge MassachusettsHarvard | Jonathan Graduate Levi Architects Student | Bergmeyer Housing Associates, at 29 Garden Street Cambridge Massachusetts | Jonathan Levi Architects | Bergmeyer Associates, Harvard Graduate Student Housing at 29 Garden Street Precedent: Harvard Graduate Student Housing at 29 Garden Street PUBLIC Cambridge Massachusetts | Jonathan Levi Architects | Bergmeyer Associates,

Cambridge MassachussettsSEMI-PRIVATE |Jonathan Levi Architects | PUBLIC Bergmeyer Associates | SEMI-PRIVATE Harvard University’s conversion of a 5- story police building into

affordable student apartments provides an excellent example PUBLIC of the adaptive resuse of a historic building and landscape. All SEMI-PRIVATE units open to a greenroof onPRIVATE the second story of the building, which serves a community courtyard, allowingPRIVATE unique transitions from private to public spaces. The designs great transition between interior and exterior, and gradual sequence from private to semi private to public spaces make this project an excellent example for what student housing could be in the Langdon and Mansion Hill Districts. PRIVATE

-Adaptive reuse of historic re station -Adaptive reuse of historic re station -Great transition spaces from public to private -Great transition spaces from public to private Harvard Graduate Student Housing at 29 Garden Street -Excellent integration into neighborhood fabric Cambridge Massachusetts | Jonathan Levi Architects | Bergmeyer Associates, -Excellent integration into neighborhood fabric -Adaptive reuse of historic re station -Great transition spaces from public to private PUBLIC SEMI-PRIVATE -Excellent integration into neighborhood fabric

PRIVATE

Figure 8.03: Harvard Graduate Student Housing at 29 Garden Street 50 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture

-Adaptive reuse of historic re station

-Great transition spaces from public to private

-Excellent integration into neighborhood fabric Figure 8.03: Harvard Graduate Student Housing at 29 Garden Street Precedent Studies 51 Statement on Design Ethics Evaluation Criteria

Historic spaces act as tangible connections to the past. They are a reflection of those who inhabit them, responding Advocate Preservation issues. to both individual preferences and the culture of the Traditionally, preservation advocacy is strongest in time. Historic spaces connect us to our ancestors and neighborhoods where residents feel connected to the our communities, ultimately informing our collective and community. Generally, these neighborhoods consist of individual identity. owner occupied single family units where owners actively embrace the historic character of their homes. In contrast As designers we have the great privilege to design spaces large student population makes up the Langdon and for people; to create spaces that become part of their Mansion Hill neighborhood. In this transient neighborhood, user’s lives. At the same time, we must value the existing creating effective advocacy is difficult. Students spend only built environment and acknowledge the spaces that four years in the neighborhood, before they graduate and people already hold dear. A careful balance between move on and are often apathetic to issues of preservation. preservation and new development must celebrate the A central goal fo my project will be advocacy for past, while allowing opportunities for future growth. With this preservation issues. as a central focus, my project attempts to honor the rich cultural heritage of downtown Madison while enhancing Design for a wide range of users. opportunities for the neighborhood to be enjoyed. The A diverse demographic profile makes up the Mansion following evaluation criteria contribute to this central goal. Hill and Langdon District .In addition, opportunities for transportation and open-space infrastructure will create potential for additional users. My design will seek to be inclusive to all groups, including those traditionally marginalized by society (homeless, minority, students)

Encourage Affordable Housing The rapid growth of high-end rental housing in Langdon has implications for both the physical and social character of the neighborhood. As high-end new construction replaces lower rent properties, there is a potential for rents to rise in the neighborhood, effectively pricing out students of lower income; the development of public infrastructure projects also has the potential to raise property values and rents in the neighborhood.

In order to ensure a diverse array of housing options for people of all incomes, subsidized affordable housing and housing coops should be encouraged in the area (See Affordable Housing, pg 50).

52 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Expected Results

Implement Sustainable practices. The substantial amount of community, government and My design seeks to improve the environmental health of the citizen coordination required to carry out this project Langdon/Mansion Hill neighborhood. By enhancing existing presents a significant political challenge to proponents of a infrastructure, my design will reduce the environmental Mansion Hill/ Langdon Bike/Pedestrian Path. Nevertheless, impact of the existing built environment. The following growing interest from Madison residents in expanding the criteria will contribute to this goal city’s bike system and enhancing open space in Downtown Madison has the potential to create widespread public support of this project. Improve the Lake Mendota Shoreline. Enhancements to the Lake Mendota shoreline will limit In creating a comprehensive plan for Mansion Hill and shoreline erosion that currently poses a threat to existing Langdon Neighborhoods, I hope to create a vision that will property. help city staff and local non-profit groups advocate for a bike/ pedestrian path in the neighborhood. While the City of Stormwater Management Madison Planning Department’s Downtown Plan serves as Much of the stormwater in the Langdon/ Mansion Hill an excellent document to inform citizens of this impressive neighborhood contributes the contamination and growth proposal, a more detailed conceptual design presents the of algae within Lake Mendota. Stormwater design will insure opportunity to expand on the vision and create greater less post-construction runoff than pre-construction runoff. support for the project. Demonstration exhibits will educate the public on efforts to control and managet lake algae blooms.

Improve Walkability My proposal will improve walkability in the Mansion Hill/ Langdon area and encourage pedestrian life.

Enhance Bike access My proposal will enhance opportunities for bikers, improving Madison’s regional bike network With the extension of the Lakeshore Path and the construction of the Langdon Inner Block Path, over 1 mile of new bike trails will be added to Madison’s bike system

Employ Universal Design My project will be consistent with ADA standards for public spaces, ensuring that spaces will be accessible to all abilities and user groups.

Design Ethics and Evaluation Criteria 53 Design Solutions and Rationales

Master Plan Proposed Figure 9.01 identifies 6 areas of focus where I have provided Proposed conceptual design for the path. Acting as nodes within the Lakeshore Path proposed bike/ pedestrian system, these areas will serve Langdon as parks along the path, ultimately expanding the existing Extension network of park space that includes James Madison Park, Inner Block Path Memorial Union and Edgewater Hotel.

N Pinckney Street Pinckney Street N Pinckney Street NN. Carroll Carrol Street N Henry Street N Francis Street

N Lake Street

Figure 9.01: Proposed Lakeshore Path Nodes

Carroll Street Landgon Inner Block Path Henry Street

54 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture

1 N

Proposed Proposed Lakeshore Path Langdon Extension Inner Block Path

N Pinckney Street

N Pinckney Street NN. Carroll Carrol Street N Henry Street N Francis Street

N Lake Street

Henry Street Francis Street Lake Street

Design Solutions and Rationales 55

1 Pinckney Street Connection Additionally, public involvement in development of this lot can ensure that a substantial amount of public open space A lot consisting of wooded slopes and a parking lot sits is maintained on the lot. sandwiched between Edgewater Hotel and N. Pinckney Street. The new development at Edgewater Hotel will likely Initial Concept create further development pressure on this property. My initial concept for the Pinckney Street lot proposed a Typical development proposed on this property would likely small five story building with access along Pinckney Street try to maximize developer revenue by maximizing building (Figure 9.02) ,leaving a majority of the existing lot for space and leaving out landscape. Given the historic nature public park space. While this proposal offers a substantial of the neighborhood and the smaller massing of buildings opportunity for development of a unique pocket park and (particularly on Pinckney Street), this type of proposal is maintains a scale that is consistent with the historic buildings inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and lining Pinckney Street, ultimately I felt that it was not a would face tremendous resistance from the community. realistic proposal given the development pressures on the Ultimately, a design that is consistent with the scale of lot. adjacent building is ideal. Final Proposal Public/ Private Partnership A tremendous opportunity exists to develop this property in Figure 9.03 provides conceptual design for Pinckney tandem with the Lakeshore Path extension. By creating a Street. In this scheme, I have proposed an 8 story building public private partnership between the City of Madison and with subsurface parking. The scale is consistent with the a private developer, the city can ensure that substantial scale of Edgewater Hotel addition, the National Guardian revenue is generated to support the public project. Life Building, and the building height proposal laid out in the Downtown Plan. In order to reduce traffic on quiet residential Pinckney Street, access to this building would come from Wisconsin Avenue.

Ultimately eighty feet of public green space is preserved in this scheme. This provides valuable access to the lakeshore path as well as serving as a buffer between the larger buildings and the smaller historic residential buildings lining Pinckney Street.

The design for Pinckney Street Park (figure 9.03) takes advantage of the existing topography and canopy cover. Stairway access down the steep hill is interrupted by two overlooks that sit cantilevered over the steep topography. Clearings in the woods provide for elevated views of Lake Figure 9.03 Pinckney Street Development Concept Mendota. Steps leading down to the water provide public Figure 9.02 Initial Pinckney Street Park Concept water access akin to the design at the Memorial Union.

56 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Edgewater Hotel 90’-0” 80’-0” Proposed Public Park Space Proposed 8 Story Condominium

Pinckney Street

Public Terrace

Figure 9.03 Pinckney Street Development Concept

Design Solutions and Rationales 57 Carroll Street Connection Brooklyn Bridge Park Brooklyn, NY A wood staircase currently provides lake access from the top of Carroll Street to Lake Mendota. Two 1960s era student highrise apartment buildings line the western edge of the site.

Carroll Street’s proximity to a large amount of student housing make a pivotal node along the path. In order to provide a key link in the downtown bike system, it is essential that this node serve as an entrance for cyclists onto the Lakeshore Path. Michael Van Valkenburgh & Associates Initial Concept Long Sleave Skywalk, Figure 9.05 provides my initial concept for the Carroll Street Node. A connection to the water is achieved through Zuzhou City, China switchbacks. A stairway connects the existing highrise structure to the road. Ultimately, this concept would not meet ADA standards for for wheelchair access and was abandoned as I developed my design.

After a discussion with City Planner Rebecca Cnare, I began looking into other opportunities to create bicycle access to the water. A review of precedents (Figure 9.04) introduced Turenscape me to a variety of pedestrian bridge projects from around the world. Aside from serving as a functional circulation space for pedestrian and cyclists, these pedestrian bridges serve as landmarks to their cities while providing users unique Bridge on the River Main, views of their surrounding. Raunheim, Netherlands

Schneider + Schumacher Architects,

Figure 9.04: Pedestrian Bridge Precedent Studies

58 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Figure 9.05: Carroll Street Connection Concept Development

Design Solutions and Rationales 59 Carroll Street Connection deck provides 180 views of lake Mendota, while serving Figure 9.06 and Figure 9.07 show the proposed pedestrian as a fishing platform for anglers. The observation platform, bridge connection. The spiral structure is suspended over elevated eight feet over the lake also could function as a Lake Mendota, descending 20 feet from Carroll Street to the stop on a water taxi system. Lakeshore path and jutting out over 120’ from the shore of the lake. On the front of the bridge, a 15’ wide observation

Figure 9.06: Looking over Lake Mendota from Carroll Street

60 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture 1 Public/ Private Partnership The two existing 1960s era student highrise structures on the western side of Carroll Street are of low construction quality 2 and are of only two dozen buildings that are not restricted from demolition by the Mansion Hill local historic district. The two, buildings, which currently serve as low rent student apartments, could be redeveloped to complement the new lakeshore path. By developing high-rent, multi-family housing geared towards students on these two buildings, Lakeshore Path the city can develop a larger tax base, while creating a 3 funding structure to finance parts of the lake shore path. With a clear vision from the city of Madison, a large amount of private investment can ensure significant funding of 4 public open space. 5

6

7 Langdon Inner Block Path (No Vehichles) 1 Water Taxi Stop 7 2 Floating Wetland 6 3 East Bound Turn Lane

Carroll Street 4 Cafe Seating 5 Stablilization Terraces 6 Proposed 8-story apartment complex 7 Entrance to Subsurface Parking

feet 0 25 50 100 N

Figure 9.07: Carroll Street Connection Site Plan

Design Solutions and Rationales 61 Carroll Street Connection Figure 9.07 and 9.08 highlight the shape and massing of the proposed building and how it relates to the Carroll Street Connection Node. Two towers would be connected by a subsurface parking garage that is accessed from a central alleyway. An upper level terrace provides outdoor seating for a proposed cafe. Massings of the proposed buildings would match the massings and height of the existing building eight story buildings and be consistent with the proposal laid out in the Downtown Plan.

Figure 9.08: Carroll Street Connection

62 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Water Taxi Observation Deck serves as a stop on Madison’s water taxi route Observation Deck Provides 360 degree views of Lake Mendota and Downtown Madison Public/ Private Partnerships Proposed 8 story luxury apartments enhance c Collaboration between City of Madison and private developers provides substantial capital to carry out the infrastructure project.

Design Solutions and Rationales 63 Floating wetlands

Since the 1950s, Madison lakes have seen increased algae blooms. The eutrophication, caused in large part by Anchoring system ensures that the Plants roots provide surface island won’t float away area for microbes to pull harmful phosphorus and nitrogen from agricultural runoff pose a Nitrogen and Phosphorus perennial problem for swimmers, pet owners, boaters and from the water and perform anglers on the lakes .Natural wetlands are known to create bioremediation habitats for microbes which can treat phosphorus and nitrogen from the water.

Floating wetlands have gained popularity in public infrastructure projects in the last decade. The technology, in which wetland species are floated on a network of PVC pipe and marine foam allows wetland plant species to be in used in aquatic areas where there is a large fluctuation in water level. Local, national and international projects have utilized this technology to improve water quality, create fish habitat and provide aesthetic benefits in areas where traditionally wetlands could not be created.

The Carroll Street Connection is an ideal area to use floating wetlands. Figure 9.09 provides an overview of the ecosystem Island surface provides habitat for functions of the wetlands in context of the larger design. birds, muskrats, and insects Figure 9.10 provides construction detail demonstrating how the floating wetland could be constructed. The design uses a matrix and foam network constructed by Floating Islands International, a leading developer of floating wetland technology. While the islands come in a variety of shapes Anchoring system ensures that the and sizes, a floating island company contracted by the city, island won’t float away could provide custom islands to fit the desired shape of the design. Native and non-native wetland species : Oenanthe javanica(water celery) Pontederia cordata (Pickerel rush) Sagittaria latifolia (Arrowhead) Saururus cernuus (Lizard Tail) Scirpus sp. (Bull Rush) Typha sp. beckii (Torr. ex Spreng.) Greenewater marigold Figure 9.09: Floating Wetland Ecosystem Functions

64 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Figure 9.10: Floating Wetland Construction Detail

Design Solutions and Rationales 65 Grading and Drainage Overview

Figure 9.11 provides a conceptual section of proposed grading. A series of terraced planting beds stabilize the erosive shoreline. 9.12 highlights proposed stormwater infrastructure. Currently all water on Carroll Street enters a catch basin where it then daylights at Lake Mendota. During a 10 year storm event 3.91 cubic feet of stormwater travel through the site and ultimately directly into Lake Mendota.

Stormwater design collects a majority of the water traveling through the site into a subsurface retention device which allows water to slowly percolate into the ground, preventing sediment and pollutants from entering Lake Mendota. Water not collected in the level spreader travels through a series of terraced planting beds, connected by stand pipes, allowing water to be absorbed into ground before entering the lake. Figure 9.11: Carroll Street Connection Grading Section

Figure 9.12: Carroll Street Connection Stormwater Section

66 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Feet 0 10 20 40

Figure 9.12: Carroll Street Connection Stormwater Section

Design Solutions and Rationales 67 CUT/ FILL

Grading Calcuations Existing Contour Elevation depth (ft) AREA (sq ft) Volume cubic ft cut/fill Figure 9.13 and Figure 9.14 diagram my cut and fill 850 10 8 80 fill calculations. Note that while 1304.8 cubic yards of fill 850 10 205 2005 fill 850 8 651 5208 fill are required to grade the proposed terraced beds, an 852 8 10 80 fill additional 1718.5 cubic yards of cut are taken from the 852 8 125 1000 fill 852 6 868 5208 fill proposed level spreader (not diagrammed in Figure 9.13) 854 6 10 60 fill 854 6 94 564 fill 854 4 1090 4360 Fill Figure 9.15 shows proposed grading for the Carroll Street 856 4 10 40 fill 856 4 78 312 fill site. Planter beds staggered down the bluff to provide slope 856 2 411 822 fill stabilization and limit access to the terraces. A switchback 858 2 158 316 fill 858 2 10 20 fill at entrance to the pedestrian bridge,provides ADA access 856 -4 727 -2908 cut to the building while acting as an obstacle for speeding 854 -2 165 -330 cut

cyclists. 852 16 31 469 fill 854 14 54 756 fill 856 12 106 1272 fill 858 10 158 1580 fill + Fill 860 8 233 1864 fill - 858 6 125 750 fill Cut 860 4 47 188 fill 862 2 13 26 fill 862 4 259.2 1036 fill 864 2 239 478 fill 864 -2 97 194 fill

866 4.7 36 169 fill 868 2.7 55 148.5 fill 870 0.7 230 161 fill 872 -1.3 205 266.5 fill 874 -3.3 71 234.3 fill 874 3.9 50 202.8 fill 874 1.9 733 1392 fill 876 -0.8 115 -92 cut 878 0.9 239 215.1 fill 878 2 471 942 fill 878 3 50 150 fill 878 1 33 33 fill 878 3.92 82 321 fill 878 3.92 85 333.2 fill 880 1.92 624 1198 fill 882 2 388 776 fill

Fill total= 35230 cu ft Cut from 1304.8 cubic yds level spreader 14.5' deep x 40' x 80' 46400 cut 1718.5 cubic yds 856 -4 727 -2908 cut 854 -2 165 -330 cut 876 -0.8 115 -92 cut -3330 cut total 123.33 cubic yards Cut total 1841.83 cubic yards cut Figure 9.13: Cut and Fill Diagram Figure 9.14: Cut and Fill Calculations Figure 9.15: Proposed Grading

68 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Figure 9.15: Proposed Grading Design Solutions and Rationales 69 Pre Q Pre Q Landcover C‐ value I ("/hr) Area /43560 Q (qfs) Paved 0.85 2.5 34423 1.679 lawn 0.35 2.5 2543 0.051 vegetationPre Q Pre Q 0.3 2.5 27627 0.476 roofsLandcover C‐ value 0.95I ("/hr) Area 2.5 1316 /435604 Q (qfs) 1.704 Drainage Calculations Paved 0.85 2.5 34423 1.679 Q‐total 3.91 lawn 0.35 2.5 2543 0.051 vegetation 0.3 2.5 27627 0.476 Figure 9.16 diagrams subwatersheds that flow into the roofs 0.95 2.5 13164 1.704 Post Q Q‐total 3.91 Subwatershed Landcover C‐Value I ("/hr) AREA /43560 Q cfs x 6 hrs Volume Carroll Street site. Figure 9 .17 calculates stormwater runoff A paved 0.85 2.5 7736 0.378 2.268 cf AtotalPost Q A'Subwatershed LandcoverPorous asphalt C‐Value I 0.65 ("/hr) AREA 2.5 /43560 12161 Q cfs x 6 hrs0.454 Volume 2.72 cf for a ten year storm through these subwatersheds before A paved 0.85 2.5 7736 0.378 2.268 cf paved 0.85 2101 0.102 0.614cf Atotal A'totalA' Porous asphalt 0.65 2.5 12161 0.454 2.72 cf (PreQ) and after (PostQ) the proposed development. Note paved 0.85 2101 0.102 0.614cf B A'total Roof 0.95 2.5 1178 0.064 0.384 0.064

that DeltaQ= 1.24. B Roofpaved 0.950.85 2.5 2.5 1178 1868 0.064 0.091 0.384 5.466 0.064 0.091 vegetation 0.35 2.5 588 0.0118 0.0708 0.0118 paved 0.85 2.5 1868 0.091 5.466 0.091 vegetation 0.35 2.5 588 0.0118 0.0708 0.0118 C Roof 0.95 2.5 2164 0.118 0.295 0.118 C Roofpaved 0.950.85 2.5 2.5 2164 1430 0.118 0.07 0.295 0.42 0.118 0.07 Figure 9.18 calculates the capacity of the proposed pavedvegetation 0.850.35 2.5 2.5 1430 1869 0.07 0.033 0.42 0.198 0.07 0.033 vegetationroof 0.350.95 2.5 2.5 1869 1593 0.033 0.087 0.198 0.522 0.033 0.087 roof 0.95 2.5 1593 0.087 0.522 0.087 0.308 subsurface retention device. In order to hold total water D 0.308 D roof 0.95 2.5 2164 0.118 0.708 roofvegetation 0.950.35 2.5 2.5 2164 831 0.118 0.017 0.708 0.102 on site for a 10 year 6 hour storm the level spreader has to vegetation 0.35 2.5 831 0.017 0.102

E E RoofRoof 0.950.95 2.5 2.5 2395 2395 0.13 0.13 0.78 0.78 be 40’ x 80’ x 14.5’. This device is shown under the road in PavedPaved 0.850.85 2.5 2.5 2019 2019 0.098 0.098 0.588 0.588

F F RoofRoof 0.950.95 2.5 2.5 1093 1093 0.059 0.059 0.354 0.354 Figure 9.19. PavedPaved 0.850.85 2.5 2.5 1833 1833 0.089 0.089 0.534 0.534

GG porousporous pavement pavement 0.65 0.65 2.5 2.5 1463 1463 0.054 0.054 0.324 0.324

H permeable paver 0.65 2.5 1524 0.057 0.342 0.342 H permeable paver 0.65 2.5 1524 0.057 0.342 0.342 vegetation 0.35 2.5 385 0.0077 0.0462 0.0462 Figure 9.19 provides pipe sizing and spot elevations for a porousvegetation ashphalt 0.650.35 2.5 2.5 2737 385 0.0102 0.0077 0.0612 0.0462 0.0612 0.0462 I porous ashphalt 0.65 2.5 2737 0.0102 0.0612 0.4494 0.0612 I vegetation 0.35 2.5 765 0.015 0.09 0.4494 series of stand pipe along the terraced beds. concretevegetation 0.850.35 2.5 2.5 1420 765 0.0692 0.015 0.4152 0.09 concrete 0.85 2.5 1420 0.0692 0.4152 J Vegetation 0.35 2.5 668 0.013 0.078 pavement 0.85 2.5 178 0.0087 0.0521 J Vegetation 0.35 2.5 668 0.013 0.078 1468 pavement 0.85 2.5 178 0.0087 0.0521 K Vegetation 0.35 2.5 793.5 0.0159 0.0954 236 0.85 2.5 178 0.0087 0.0521 1188 1468 K Vegetation 0.35 2.5 793.5 0.0159 0.0954 535 236 L Vegetation 0.350.85 2.5 2.5 58678 178 0.124 0.0087 0.744 0.0521 5251 1188 Building 0.95 2.5 2568 0.14 0.84 8678 535 L pavementVegetation 0.850.35 2.5 2.5 4498 58678 0.219 0.124 1.314 0.744 5251 permeableBuilding paveers 0.650.95 2.5 2.5 365 2568 0.014 0.14 0.0817 0.84 8678 2.6762 pavement 0.85 2.5 4498 0.219 1.314 permeable paveers 0.65 2.5 365 0.014 0.0817 Post Q 2.6762 Subwatershed Landcover C‐Value I ("/hr) AREA /43560 Q cfs x 6 hrs Volume A paved 0.85 2.5 7736 0.378 PostAtotal Q SubwatershedA' PorousLandcover asphalt C 0.65‐Value I 2.5("/hr) 12161 AREA /435600.454 Q cfs x 6 hrs Volume A pavedpaved 0.85 0.85 2.52101 7736 0.102 0.378 AtotalA'total A' Porous asphalt 0.65 2.5 12161 0.454 B Roof 0.95 2.5 1178 0.064 paved 0.85 2101 0.102 A'total paved 0.85 2.5 1868 0.091 vegetation 0.35 2.5 588 0.0118 B Roof 0.95 2.5 1178 0.064 C Roof 0.95 2.5 2164 0.118 pavedpaved 0.850.85 2.5 2.5 1430 1868 0.07 0.091 vegetationvegetation 0.350.35 2.5 2.5 1869 588 0.033 0.0118 roof 0.95 2.5 1593 0.087 Sum of A'‐C (from adjacent sites) 1.4 cfs C D Roof 0.95 2.5 2164 0.118 roofpaved 0.950.85 2.5 2.5 2164 1430 0.118 0.07 vegetationvegetation 0.350.35 2.5 2.5 831 1869 0.017 0.033 roof 0.95 2.5 1593 0.087 SumE of A'‐C (from adjacent sitesRoof) 0.95 2.5 2395 0.131.4 cfs D Paved 0.85 2.5 2019 0.098 roof 0.95 2.5 2164 0.118 F Roof 0.95 2.5 1093 0.059 vegetation 0.35 2.5 831 0.017 Paved 0.85 2.5 1833 0.089

E G porousRoof pavement 0.650.95 2.5 2.5 1463 2395 0.054 0.13 Paved 0.85 2.5 2019 0.098

F H permeableRoof paver 0.650.95 2.5 2.5 1524 1093 0.057 0.059 0.342 0.342 vegetationPaved 0.350.85 2.5 2.5 385 1833 0.0077 0.089 0.0462 0.0462 porous ashphalt 0.65 2.5 2737 0.0102 0.0612 0.0612 I 0.4494 G porous pavement 0.65 2.5 1463 0.054 vegetation 0.35 2.5 765 0.015 0.09 concrete 0.85 2.5 1420 0.0692 0.4152

H J Vegetationpermeable paver0.35 0.65 2.5 2.5 668 1524 0.013 0.057 0.078 0.342 0.342 pavementvegetation 0.850.35 2.5 2.5 178 385 0.0087 0.0077 0.0521 0.0462 0.0462 porous ashphalt 0.65 2.5 2737 0.0102 0.0612 14680.0612 I K Vegetation 0.35 2.5 793.5 0.0159 0.0954 2360.4494 vegetation 0.850.35 2.5 2.5 178 765 0.0087 0.015 0.0521 0.09 1188 535 concrete 0.85 2.5 1420 0.0692 0.4152 L Vegetation 0.35 2.5 58678 0.124 0.744 5251 Building 0.95 2.5 2568 0.14 0.84 8678 J pavementVegetation 0.850.35 2.5 2.5 4498 668 0.219 0.013 1.314 0.078 permeablepavement paveers 0.650.85 2.5 2.5 365 178 0.014 0.0087 0.0817 0.0521 2.2982 1468 K Vegetation 0.35 2.5 793.5 0.0159 0.0954 236 0.85 2.5 178 0.0087 0.0521 1188 Sum of D‐G (on site) (Goes to level spreader 0.565 535 1.9738 x 60 x 60 x 6 L Vegetation 0.35 2.5 58678 0.124 0.744 5251 Depth of Level Spreader Level spreader must hold 42634 cu ft water Area of Level Spreader 1600Building sq feet 0.95 2.5 2568 0.14 0.84 8678 stonepavement depth void0.85 space 2.5 4498 0.219 1.314 Layer 1 3/4"permeable paveers0.5' 0.650.25 2.5 365200 0.014 0.0817 2.0' 0.35 1120 2.2982 8' 0.4 1600sq feet Figure 9.16: Subwatersheds Sum of D‐G (on site) (Goes to level spreader 0.565 Figure 9.17: Stormwater Calculations1.9738 x 60 x 60 x 6 Depth of Level Spreader Level spreader must hold 42634 cu ft water Area of Level Spreader 1600 sq feet stone depth void space Layer 1 3/4" 0.5' 0.25 200 70 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture 2.0' 0.35 1120 8' 0.4 1600sq feet Level Spreader Dimensions: 80' x 40' x 14.5'

Layer Depth Void Space Stone Size 1 0.5' 0.25 3/4" 2 2.0' 0.35 3" 3 12' 0.4 8"

(40') (80') (12') 0.4 > 15360 cuft layer 3 (40') (80') 2' 0.35 2240 cuft layer 2 (40') (80') 0/5' 0.25 400 Layer 1

Level Spreader Can store 18000 cu ft of runoff

Sum of on site site runoff =12204 cu ft

Sum Total water through site = 42634.08 cu ft

Level Spreader will store all 12204 of stormwater runoff on site plus an additional 5796 cu ft of storm water from adjacent sites during a 10 year, 6 hour storm

Figure 9.18: Level Spreader Calculations Figure 9.17: Stormwater Calculations Figure 9.19: Stormwater Design

Design Solutions and Rationales 71 Planting Design Trees

Plants at the Carroll Street Connection were chosen for suitability for northern slopes, suitability for shade and minimal maintenance. Swamp white oak and eastern redbud make up the tree canopy. Access to the steep terraces are limited, so an effort was made to select shrubs that would only require maintenance several times a Cercis x canadensis Quercus bicolor Ulmus frontier Frontier Elm year. A variety of wetland species provide textural and color interest Eastern Redbid Swamp White Oak throughout the year. Perennials

Scientific Name Common Name Perenials Aca Acontitum carmichaelii Monkshood Ac Asarum canadense Canadian Wild Ginger Ca Calamagrostis × acutiflora 'Karl Foerster' Karl Foerster Feather Reed Gras Cl Chasmanthium latifolium Northern Sea Oats Cm Convalaria majalis Lily of the Valley Ep Ecinacaea purpurea Purple Cone flower Perovskia Atriplicifolia Liatris spicata P. alopecuroides. Calamagrostis x acutifolia Hs Hemorcallis spp. daylillies Russian Sage Blazing Star Japanese Fountain Grass Feather Reed Grass Hsp Hosta spp. hosta Ls Liatris spicata Liatris Shrubs Pv Panicum virgatum Pa Pennesetum alopecuriodes Japanese Fountain Grass Pp Phlox paniculata Phlox Pc Polygonatum commutatum Soloman's Seal Rf Rudbeckia fulgida Black Eyed Susan Sr Solidago rugosa ' Fireworks' Goldenrod Vs Veronica spicata Speedwell Vv Veronicastrum virginicum Culver's Root Asarum Canadense Diervilla lonicera Aronia Melanocarpa ‘’ Cornus Pumila Shrubs Canadian Ginger Dwarf Honeysuckle Black Chokeberry Dwarf Red- Twig Am Aronia melanocarpa 'Morton' Chokeberry Ch Catoneaster horizontalis Rockspray Catoneaster Cs Cornus sericea Red twig dogwood Dl Diervilla lonicera Dwarf bushhoneysuckle Dll Diervilla lonicera 'LPDC Poderas' Variegated southern bush honeysuckle Hv Hemhemeilis virginiana common witchazel Iv Ilex verticilata Winterberry Js Juniperus spp. Junipers Catoneaster horizontalis Pv Panicum virgatum Ilex x verticilata Symphoricarpus orbiculatas Physocarpus opulifolius Indian Currant Corralberry Rockspray Catoneaster Po Physocarpus opulifolius 'little devil Dwarf Ninebark Winterberry Dwarf Ninebark Ra Rhus aromatica gro low Rt Rhus typhina bailtiger Tiger Eyes Sumac Wetland Species Ral Ribes alpinum Alpine currant So Symphorocarpus oribiculatas Indian Currant Coral berry Tm Taxus x media Anglo japanese yew Vl Viburnum lantago Vo Viburnum opulus var americanum American Cranberrybush viburnum Vp Viburnum prunifolium

Trees Cc Cercis canadensis Eastern redbud Acorus calamus Scirpus sp. Cartha palustris Dichromena colorata Qb Quecus bicolor Swamp white oak Japanese Sweet Flag Bull Rush Marsh Marigold Star grass

Figure 9.20Wetland : Planting species Schedule Figure 9.21 : Planting Pallette Selections

72 ZachOj SmallOenanthe BS javanica in Landscape Architecture (water celery) Figure 9.22 : Planting Plan

Design Solutions and Rationales 73 Henry Street Ampitheater My initial concept for Henry street proposed an amphitheater built into the side of the hill Modifying the The steep grades at Henry Street make creating bike and grades to include ADA access to the lower amphitheater, ADA access difficult. Nevertheless, a stairway connection required changing the orientation of the amphitheater. can provide needed access to neighborhood residents. Figure 9.23 provides a conceptual design for the Henry Likewise, programmed space at Henry Street can provide Street Amphitheater, highlighting opportunities for a fire ring needed public gathering spaces for Langdon area and a cantilevered fishing platform. residents.

-

Stairway access to Francis Street 20 person ampitheater JDM Properties

-Graphic - Detail site plan?

cantilevered fishing platform

Figure 9.23 : Henry Street Ampitheater

74 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture A raised seating area provides views of the lake. The Francis Street Connection terraced walls, used throughout the path use local sandstone and complement the rich palette of traditional The shallow grades at Francis Street allow for an easy materials used in the neighborhood. A series of steps connection to the lakeshore path (Figure 9.24),A 12’-0” provides public lake access similar to the design of the access lane is preserved for bicycles, ADA access and Memorial Union. emergency egress access.

Figure 9.24 : Francis Street Connection

Design Solutions and Rationales 75 Francis Street to Lake Street: property owners along the lake. While in the eastern Greek Promenade and central portion of the path, steep topography allows for a clear separation between the path and Gathering support from property owners along the private property, the flat topography between the proposed lakeshore route is likely to be a long and difficult Francis and Lake Street stretch make creating a process. Fraternities, sororities, coops and private owners transition from public to private space difficult. By along the lake highly value their existing private lake creating 12’-0 public boardwalk over the water (Figure access. A public path threatens both the exclusivity and 9.25) a clear separation will be made between public the privacy that property owners along the lake already and private space. While this solution creates numerous enjoy and makes easement acquisition difficult. Throughout engineering challenges, it will likely make easement the design, an effort is made to preserve the privacy of acquisition less difficult.

Private Dock -Graphic - Detail site plan?

Public Boardwalk Private Yard

Figure 9.25 : Greek Promenade Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture

76 Privacy Gate Private Docks Private docks throughout the path require a locked gate. Private docks provide opportunities for property owners to Figure 9.26 proposes a locked gate design. Cedar fence maintain their private lake access. By allowing permitting for panels on the side of the dock prevent intruders from larger docks, property owners could rent docking spaces for reaching their hands around the gate. An electronic boaters. This could provide significant revenue for property keypad allows restricted access without a key. A recessed owners ( particularly greek organizations) who often struggle panel of marine grade plywood features the greek for funding. organization’s insignia.

Figure 9.26 : Privacy Gate

Design Solutions and Rationales 77 Landgon Inner Block Path

The loose network of private driveways, public paths and Lowell Center city roads between Langdon Street and Lake Mendota provide a great opportunity to enhance bike and pedestrian connectivity through the neighborhood. Helen C . Francis Street White Library

The path begins in east at the Carroll Street connection, where the alleyway between the two towers of the proposed residential development form the start of the path. The path ends through a connection at Francis street and Mendota Court.

Figure 9.27 and Figure 9.28 provide conceptual renderings of the Langdon Inner Block Path. Figure 9.27 depicts Existing the removal of the existing in parking garage at the UW Figure 9.27 : Lowell Center Link Lowell Center with a bike pedestrian path crossing Francis Street. Significant grading to Francis Street and the existing pedestrian path would be required to carryout this proposal. Terraced planters and pavers compliment the historic architecture in this area. An addition to the Lowell Center provides a new entrance onto the path that transitions into an adjacent exterior plaza. Bollards at the end of Mendota Court would prevent vehicular traffic from entering the bike pedestrian network.

Figure 9.28 shows improvements proposed to the Iota Court portion of the inner block path. Banded paving directs pedestrian and bicycle circulation, while planters provide outlets for stormwater. Traditional lighting complements the

Existing Figure 9.28 : Iota Court Node

78 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Proposed

Proposed

Design Solutions and Rationales 79 Phasing Phase 1 : Public/ Private Partnerships

Easement acquisition and community buy-in present numerous political challenges for proponents of the Mansion Hill/ Langdon waterfront development. Strategic phasing (Figure 2.29) can ensure piecemeal construction of the project that develops as community support builds and funding becomes available.

James In Phase 1, the lakeshore path is extended from James Edgewater Phase 3 Madison Park to Carroll Street in conjunction with two large Madison Park Verex Plaza scale private development projects at Pinckney Street and Pinckney Street Park Carroll Street Connection National Hotel Carroll Street. The success of this segment, would likely make UW Gaurdian waterfront owners realize the benefits of the project and Lifesaving would ultimately create support for segment 2 which could Life Alumni Park be developed shortly thereafter. The Langdon Inner Block and Memorial Path would be developed third. In the event that segment 2 could not be developed, segment three could serve as the Union primary path.

N Pinckney Street

N. CarollCarroll Street Street

N Henry Street Street Henry Henry N N

Phase 1 N Francis Street

N Lake Street Phase 2

Legend

Public Easment Private Property

Figure 9.29 : Construction Phasing Scheme

80 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Phase 2 : Community Buy-in Phase 3 : Neighborhood Link

Carroll Street Connection Greek Promenade Langdon Inner Block Path

Design Solutions and Rationales 81 Reflection This has been the foundation for much of my proposal, and I’ve tried to expand on the work developed there. By 1.Content Reflection focusing on historic and cultural resources, I’ve attempted to take the proposal one step further and create a vision for how the spaces in the area will feel. Ultimately I hope that Working in Madison, I’ve been fortunate to have a wide the existing historic features can inform the design of the variety of resources available to me. The plethora of GIS proposed infrastructure. Data from the UW Map library and from the City of Madison Planning Department has been incredibly helpful to me. Additionally, the Sketchup Models provided by the City of 4. Self Reflection Madison Planning Department has allowed me to create This year I’ve enjoyed the opportunity to delve deeply into a visuals that successfully portray building massing and spatial topic that I thoroughly enjoyed. I first grew interested in the arrangement in the neighborhood. neighborhoods when I lived in Mansion Hill my sophomore and junior years. For my Landscape Graphics Project in LA Ultimately, the large amount of data I have gathered is 312, I drew the Mansion Hill and Langdon Neighborhoods. To sufficient given the scope of my project. Nevertheless, I finish my degree, by focusing on plans for the neighborhood may add demographic and census data next semester to has been a very enjoyable experience. provide a better argument for my proposal Though I’ve been very passionate about this project, I think that my personal connection to the neighborhood 2. Process Reflection may cause me to be biased in my recommendations. Nevertheless, being a student – who represents a demographic often underrepresented in policy and public The multitude of opportunities for improvements to the design decisions gives me a unique a perspective that I Langdon/ Mansion Hill neighborhoods at first made it difficult hope will prove valuable to my clients. to develop a clear vision for what the area should become. By simplifying my focus to redeveloping underutilized I’ve been fortunate to present my project to a variety of properties, extending the lakeshore path, and creating groups. Last week, I met with city engineer Tony Fernandez, an inner block path, I hope to provide a succinct vision Fred Klancnik and Greg Harrington of the UW Engineering for development. All of these goals require significant Department and James Steiner from the UW landscepe consideration of a multiple of factors at multiple scales. By architecture department. They were excited about my project and are planning on having the UW engineering simplifying my focus to these three elements, I have an easy department use portions of the Lakeshore Path as the way to discuss and consider design decisions as I move 2014-2015 engineering capstone site. I was also selected forward with my project. to present my project at the May 2014 Alliance for HIstoric Landscape Preservation Conference in Saint Paul 3. Premise Refection. Minnesota. I am very grateful for the interest this project has generated and I’m hopeful that a proposal like this will I have been very fortunate to continue the work of the City eventually be built. of Madison’s Downtown Plan. While I’ve tried to be critical of the Downtown Plan, I generally feel that the proposals laid out in it are very well thought out and sensitive to multiple interests in the neighborhood.

82 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Press Release

Zach Small, a senior in the UW- Madison Landscape Architecture program presented his capstone project to area professionals and City of Madison Planning Staff on Wednesday, May 5th at the University of Wisconsin Madison. Mr. Small’s year long project explored a development proposal to extend the Howard Temin Lakeshore Path through the Langdon and Mansion HIll Neighborhoods in Downtown Madison. The core issues he explored were:

-Opportunities for new public by ways to provide recreational opportunities and enhance livability in downtown Madison.

-Landscape infrastructure that complements the rich architectural features of the Langdon/ Mansion Hill neighborhood.

-Building community support for preservation and infrastructure development from a variety of stakeholders such as students and property owners who are traditionally disengaged or resistant to public projects.

Carrying on with the work of the city of Madison Planning Department’s Downtown Plan, Zach’s project builds on the work of over a century of ideas of local designers and planners who have sought to create greater public access to Madison’s Lakes. Though carry on a project like this seems difficult, Zach is ultimately optimistic that the city will see more public access to water in years to come.

Reflection and Press Release 83 Appendix Figure 2.10: Local Historic Districts

Figure 2.11: Waterfront Apartments Proposal, Figures Madison Trust for Historic Preservation Apendix Figure 1.01: Post Card of Lake Mendota, found by Jones, Figure 2.12: Iota Court Proposal, Madison Trust for Parker Historic Preservation Figure 1.02: Wisconsin Ave, Looking North Towards Lake Mendota, 1872 Figure 3.01: Project Workflow Diagram, Zach Small Figure 1.03: Lake Mendota Shore, 1917. Wisconsin Historical Society Figure 4.01: City Owned Easments, Zach Small, Sketchup Model provided by City of Figure 1.04: 100 Block of East Gilman Street, 1889. Wisconsin Madison Planning Department Historical Society Figure 5.01: Lynch’s “Collage of Time” In the Figure 1.05: Context Map. Zach Small GIS source: UW Mansion Hill / Langdon Area, Zach Geography Library Small, Images from Wisconsin Historic Society Figure 6.01: Proposed Program, Zach Small Figure 2.01: Anniversary of Mrs. A.E. Proudfit, c 1889. Wisconsin Historical Society Figure 6.02: Land Use Inventory, Zach Small

Figure 2.02: Levi Vilas House, 1890. Wisconsin Historical Figure 6.03: Year Built Inventory, Zach Small Society Figure 6.04 Non-Contributing Properties, Zach Small Figure 2.03: Alpha Epsilon Phi Dinner Party, 1933. Wisconsin Historical Society Figure 6.05: Proposed Sites for Redevelopment, Zach Small

Figure 2.04, Kappa Delta Sorority House, 1946. Wisconsin Figure 6.06: Proposed Parks and Open Space Connections, Historical Society Zach Small, Findorff Corporation, UW Alumni Association, SmithgroupJJR Figure 2.05: 142 Langdon Street. Zach Small Figure 6.07: Proposed Phasing Strategy, Zach Small Figure 2.06: Keenan House and National Guardian Life Insurance Building, 1971 Figure 6.08: Proposed Public Access, Zach Small Figure 2.07: Period Garden Park. Zach Small Figure 6.09: Shoreline Conditions, Zach Small Figure 2.08: Interpretive Signage. Zach Small Figure 6.10: Proposed Shoreline Treatments, Zach Figure 2.09: National Historic Districts, Zach Small Small Figure 6.11: Langdon Alleyways, Zach Small

84 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Figure 6.12: Common Student Route Through Inner Block Figure 9.01: Proposed Lakeshore Path Nodes, Zach Small Path, Zach Small Figure 9.02: Initial Pinckney Street Park Concept, Zach Small Figure 6.13: Construction Challenges in the Langdon Inner Block Path Figure 9.03: Pinckney Street Development Concept, Zach Small Figure 7.01: Proposed Bicycle Connections, Zach Small Figure 9.04 Pedestrian Bridge Precedent Studies, Michael Figure 7.02: Madison Bicycle System, Zach Small Van Valkenburgh & Associates, Turenscape, Schneider + Schumacher Architecture Figure 7.03: Multifamily Residential Construction, City of Madison Downtown Plan, Daily Cardinal, Zach Small Figure 9.05: Carroll Street Concept Development, Zach Small Figure 7.04: New Residential Construction, Steve Brown Apartments, Zach Small, Palisade Apartments, Figure 9.06: Lake Mendota From Carroll Street, Zach Small Wisconsin State Journal Figure 9.07: Carroll Street Connection Site Plan, Zach Small Figure 7.05: City of Madison Downtown Plan – Proposed Building Heights, City of Madison Downtown Plan Figure 9.08: Carroll Street Connection, Zach Small

Figure 7.06: Proposed Building Heights, City of Madison Figure 9.09: Floating Wetland Ecoystem Functions, Zach Downtown Plan, Zach Small Small

Figure 7.07: Preservation/ Density Tradeoff, Wisconsin Figure 9.10: Floating Wetland Construction Detail, Zach Small Historical Society, Zach Small, Capitol Lakes Retirement Home, La Ciel Apartments, The Figure 9.11: Carroll Street Connection Grading Section, Zach Ideal Apartments, Regent Market Coop, Barrymore Small Theater Figure 9.12: Carroll Street Connection Stormwater Section, Figure 7.08: City Row Apartments, aptshowcase.madison. Zach Small com Figure 9.13: Cut and Fill Diagram, Zach Small Figure 8.01: Longfellow Street Woonerf, Nelson Nygard Consulting Associates Figure 9.14 Cut and Fill Calculations, Zach Small

Figure 8.02: Milwaukee Riverwalk, Enburg Anderson and Figure 9.15: Carroll Street Connection Proposed Grading, Associates Zach Small

Figure 8.03: Harvard Graduate Student Housing at 29 Figure 9.16: Subwatersheds, Zach Small Garden Street, American Society of Landscape Architects, Dergmeyer Associates, Jonathan Levi Figure 9.17 Stormwater Calculations, Zach Small Architects

References 85 Figure 9.18: Level Spreader Calculations, Zach Small References Figure 9.19: Stormwater Design, Zach Small Cited Figure 9.20 Planting Schedule, Zach Small Araoz, Gustavo F. “World-Heritage Historic Urban Figure 9.21: Planting Pallette Selections, Zach Small, Google Landscapes: Defining and Protecting Authenticity.” APT Images Bulletin 39.2 (2008): 33-37. JSTOR. Web. 4 Oct. 2013.

Figure 9.22: Planting Plan: Zach Small www.jstor.org/stable/25433949 .>. Cnare, Rebecca, and Amy Scanlon. “Meeting with Amy Figure 9.23: Henry Street Ampitheater, Zach Small Scanlon, Rebecca Cnare.” Personal interview. 28 Aug. 2013.

Figure 9.24: Francis Street Ampitheater, Zach Small City of Madison Planning Department. City of Madison Downtown Plan: July 2012. By Paul R. Soglin, Steven R. Cover, Figure 9.25: Greek Promenade, Zach Small Bradley J. Murphy, William Fruhling, Michael Waidelich, Rebecca Cnare, Rick Roll, Ryan Jonely, Archie Nicolette, Figure 9.26: Privacy Gate Construction Detail, Zach Small and David Kress. Madison, WI: City of Madison, Dept. of Planning & Community & Economic Development, 2012. Figure 9.27: Lowell Center Link, Zach Small Print.

Figure 9.28: Iota Court Node, Zach Small Cnare, Rebecca. “Meeting with Rebecca Cnare.” Personal interview. 8 Nov. 2013. Figure 9.29: Construction Phasing Scheme, Zach Small Cofresi, Lina and Radtke, Rosetta. “Local Government Programs: Preservation Where It Counts.” A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century. By Robert E. Stipe and LIna Cofresi. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2003. 115-56. Print.

Covert, Matt. “Meeting with Matt Covert.” Personal interview. 18 Sept. 2013.

“Engberg Anderson- Milwaukee Riverwalk.” - Milwaukee, Madison, Tucson Architects. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. .

Facca, Amy E., and J. Winthrop Aldrich. “Putting the Past to Work for the Future.” The Public Historian 33.3 (2011): 38-57. JSTOR. Web. 4 Oct. 2013. .

86 Zach Small BS in Landscape Architecture Consulted “Harvard Graduate Student Housing at 29 Garden Street.” ASLA 2007 Professional Awards. American Society of Audrain, Calver W. “The Stewardship of Campus Heritage.” Landscape Architects, n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. . Society for College and University Planning. Web. 4 Oct. 2013. Howett, Catherine. “Integrity as a Value in Cultural Landscape Preservation.” Preserving Cultural Landscapes Duany, Andres. in America. By Arnold R. Alanen and Robert Melnick. “Three Cheers for “Gentrification”” The American Enterprise Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2000. 186-207. Print. 1 Apr. 2001: n. pag. Print.

Hubbard, Phil. “Geographies of Studentification and Kenyon, Elizabeth L. “Seasonal Sub-Communities: The Purpose-built Student Accommodation: Leading Separate Impact of Student Households on Residential Communities.” Lives?” Environment and Planning A 41.8 (2009): 1903-923. The British Journal of Sociology 48.2 (1997): 286-301. JSTOR. Print. Web. 8 Oct. 2013. .

Kavanagh, Gary. “Longfellow St. Redesign Borrows From Porell, Frank W. “One Man’s Ceiling Is Another Man’s Floor: Netherlands Approach.” LA.StreetsBlog.org. StreetsBlog, Landlord/Manager Residency and Housing Condition.” Land 30 Mar. 2012. Web. . Schwarz, Benjamin. “Gentrification and Its Discontents: Manhatten Never Was What We Think It Was.” Atlantic Tish, Jason, and Connor Nett. “Meeting With Jason Tish and Monthly June 2012: 85. ProQuest. Web. 4 Oct. 2013. Connor Nett.”Personal interview. 28 Sept. 2013.

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

“Period Garden Park, Mansion Hill District, Madison, Wisconsin,Madison Parks.” Period Garden Park, Mansion Hill District, Madison, Wisconsin,Madison Parks. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. .

Tipler, Gary. Mansion Hill: Glimpses of Madison’s Silk Stocking District. Madison, WI: G. Tipler, 1981. Department of Planning and Economic Development. City of Madison Planning Department. Web. .

References 87