of ABSTRACT
Title Document:
THE BLUE HERON CONFERENCE CENTER AT TRITON BEACH David Brendan Tudryn, M.ARCH, 2008
Directed By:
Professor Emeritus William Bechhoefer, FAIA, School of Architecture
Along the quiet waters of the Chesapeake is a long-forgotten beachfront park called Triton Beach. Since the 1950s its buildings have been abandoned, slowly succumbing to the Bays high tides and persistent coastal vegetation. The tract is nearly four hundred acres and contains valuable wetlands which contribute to the beauty of the Chesapeake. But without funding to repair the shore line, this area is in danger of eroding into the Chesapeake. Through a public-private initiative, a small parcel of this property will be allocated to construct a conference center. The small scale of a conference center facility will allow this project to be developed at a finite level and the building details will be the emphasis of the exercise. The delicate nature of the site demands caution and steps will be taken to preserve the natural beauty of the waterfront as viewed from both the park and the Bay.
THE BLUE HERON CONFERENCE CENTER AT TRITON BEACH
By
David Brendan Tudryn
Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture 2008
Advisory Committee: Professor Emeritus William Bechhoefer, FAIA, Chair Professor Richard A. Etlin, Ph.D., FAAR Professor Gary Bowden
Dedication
For my daughters Courtney and Alyssa; and for Pamela who always managed to keep the ship on an even keel.
ii
Acknowledgements
This work has experienced a long detour on the way to completion. The fact that its finished has less to do with my own perseverance and more to do with the encouragement of the faculty at the University, my fellow colleagues, and most importantly my family. Many thanks to Professor Mark McInturff, FAIA for introducing me to Bohlin Cyminski Jackson Architects, Centerbook Architects and others whose coherent assembly of materials foster a sensuality of place; and to Professor Bechhoefer who introduced me to the beauty of Japanese joinery and detailing. And thanks to Professor Ralph Bennett, who encouraged me to carefully illustrate my observations in sketchbooks. Eleven sketchbooks later Ive found their worth, and the skills Ive learned while sketching have been invaluable to the completion of this thesis. And thanks to my original thesis committee, Professor Bechhoefer, Professor Etlin and Professor Guido Francescato who each observed my interests and guided me towards a project that enabled me to focus on what I enjoyed most about my years at Maryland. And a special thanks to Wes Gardner, a fellow architecture student and constant studio companion who shares my love for sailing on the Chesapeake and who was always around for encouragement. Perhaps well meet again.
iii
Table of Contents
Dedication ..................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements...................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents......................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ............................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ............................................................................................................. vii Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 Chapter 2: Site Analysis............................................................................................... 3 Site Location ............................................................................................................. 3 Site Boundaries ......................................................................................................... 4 Neighborhood Character/Density ............................................................................. 6 Traffic Flow ............................................................................................................ 10 Existing Site Structures........................................................................................... 11 Vegetation ............................................................................................................... 13 Topography and Land Features .............................................................................. 17 Sun Path and Prevailing Winds............................................................................... 19 Additional Site Features.......................................................................................... 21 Past Uses ................................................................................................................. 21 Zoning ..................................................................................................................... 26 Other General Conclusions ..................................................................................... 29 Chapter 3: Program .................................................................................................... 35 Program Comparisons............................................................................................. 43 Conference Center Program by Rooms and Areas ................................................. 44 Guestrooms ......................................................................................................... 44 Main Entry Lobby............................................................................................... 46 Amphitheater....................................................................................................... 46 Conference Areas................................................................................................ 47 Breakout Rooms.................................................................................................. 48 Dining Area......................................................................................................... 48 Recreation Areas................................................................................................. 48 Final Program.......................................................................................................... 52 Chapter 4: Precedent .................................................................................................. 53 Conference Centers................................................................................................. 53 Buildings in the Landscape..................................................................................... 58 Vernacular Forms.................................................................................................... 66 Details of Assembly................................................................................................ 67 Chapter 5: Design Approach...................................................................................... 71 Concept 1 ................................................................................................................ 71 Concept 2 ................................................................................................................ 73 Concept 3 ................................................................................................................ 75 Chapter 6: Design Conclusion ................................................................................... 77 Sensitivity to the Natural Landscape ...................................................................... 77 Utilization of Vernacular architecture .................................................................... 90
iv
Image-able and Intimate Space............................................................................... 93 Attention to Detailing ............................................................................................. 99 Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 118
v
List of Tables
Table 1: Sample Programs, University Conference Centers ...................................... 43
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Site Location Plan. ........................................................................................ 3 Figure 2: Neighborhood and Project Site Boundaries. ................................................. 5 Figure 3: Photo of Beverly-Triton Beach Park Looking South (edge of project site).. 6 Figure 4: Typical Housing Typologies within the Adjacent Neighborhoods. .............. 7 Figure 5: Neighborhood Densities. ............................................................................... 9 Figure 6: Existing Roads............................................................................................. 11 Figure 7: Aerial Photograph taken in 1952................................................................. 14 Figure 8: Aerial Photograph taken in 1991................................................................. 15 Figure 9: Vegetation. .................................................................................................. 16 Figure 10: Site Topography. ....................................................................................... 18 Figure 11: Sun Path and Prevailing Winds. ................................................................ 20 Figure 12: The Beachfront Pavilions. ......................................................................... 23 Figure 13: Viewpoints................................................................................................. 24 Figure 14: General Site Features................................................................................. 25 Figure 15: Existing Neighborhood Zoning. ................................................................ 30 Figure 16: Proposed Site after Proposed Re-Zoning. ................................................. 31 Figure 17: Photo of Triton Beach Park Looking South. ............................................. 32 Figure 18: Photo of Triton Beach Looking North. ..................................................... 32 Figure 19: Photo of Approach Road. .......................................................................... 33 Figure 20: Photo of Access Road................................................................................ 33 Figure 21: Photo of Remnants of Steel Buildings. ..................................................... 34 Figure 22: Photo of Inside of Old Steel Buildings...................................................... 34 Figure 23: The Marigold Lodge Footprint on the Project Site. .................................. 37 Figure 24: The Minnowbrook Lodge Footprint on the Project Site. .......................... 38 Figure 25: The Council House Footprint on the Project Site...................................... 39 Figure 26: The GE Management Institute Footprint on the Project Site. ................... 40 Figure 27: The GTE Development Center Footprint on the Project Site. .................. 41 Figure 28: The IBM Advanced Business Institute Footprint on the Project Site. ...... 42 Figure 29: Samples of Guest Room Layouts. ............................................................. 45 Figure 30: Amphitheatre from the Steinberg Center, University of Pennsylvania..... 47 Figure 31: Application of Program Areas Relative to the Site. .................................. 50 Figure 32: Room Adjacencies..................................................................................... 51 Figure 33: IBM Advanced Business Institute. Plan Configuration. .......................... 54 Figure 34: IBM Advanced Business Institute. Break-out Rooms.............................. 55 Figure 35: IBM Advanced Business Institute. Original Sketch of Dining Area. ...... 56 Figure 36: IBM Advanced Business Institute. Original Sketch of Exterior. ............. 57 Figure 37: Fallingwater, Bear Run, Pennsylvania. Original Sketch. ......................... 59 Figure 38: Salk Institute, La Jolla, California. Original Sketch................................. 60 Figure 39: Lake Washington House, Seattle. Original Sketch. ................................. 61 Figure 40: Pool Pavilion in Pennsylvania. Original Sketch....................................... 62 Figure 41: Katsura Villa, Japan. Original Sketch. ..................................................... 63 Figure 42: Katsura Villa, Japan-Delineation of Building Edge. Original Sketch...... 64 Figure 43: Katsura Villa, Japan-Shoji Screens. Original Sketch. .............................. 65 vii
Figure 44: Driftwood Washed up Along the Chesapeake Bay ................................... 66 Figure 45: Stone Breakwaters along the Chesapeake. ................................................ 67 Figure 46: Vanity and Towel Rack, Bohlin Cywinski Jackson. Original Sketch...... 68 Figure 47: Japanese Joinery Shiribasami tsugi (scarf joint). ................................... 69 Figure 48: A Lattice Window of a Merchants House - Takayama, Japan................. 70 Figure 49: Concept 1 Sketch....................................................................................... 71 Figure 50: Design Concept 1- Site Plan...................................................................... 72 Figure 51: Concept 2 Sketch....................................................................................... 73 Figure 52: Design Concept 2 Site Plan. ................................................................... 74 Figure 53: Design Concept 3. ..................................................................................... 75 Figure 54: Design Concept 3 Site Plan. ................................................................... 76 Figure 55: Birds-Eye View........................................................................................ 79 Figure 56: Partial Enlargement of Birds-Eye View................................................... 80 Figure 57: Site Plan..................................................................................................... 81 Figure 58: Partial Enlargement of Site Plan. .............................................................. 82 Figure 59: Garden-Level Plan..................................................................................... 83 Figure 60: Partial Enlarged View of Garden-Level Plan............................................ 84 Figure 61: 2nd Level Plan. ........................................................................................... 85 Figure 62: Residence Buildings- Plans and Elevations. ............................................. 86 Figure 63: View of Walkway around the Residential Court....................................... 87 Figure 64: View from Entrance Drive. ....................................................................... 88 Figure 65: Porte Cochere. ........................................................................................... 89 Figure 66: Library. ...................................................................................................... 92 Figure 67: Reception Area. ......................................................................................... 95 Figure 68: Detail of Breakout Room. ......................................................................... 96 Figure 69: Amphitheatre. ............................................................................................ 97 Figure 70: View from the Porch towards the Chesapeake.......................................... 98 Figure 71: Column Connection Detail...................................................................... 100 Figure 72: Exposed Masonry Tie Detail................................................................... 101 Figure 73: Bench Detail with Built-In HVAC Distribution...................................... 102 Figure 74: 2nd Floor Wall Detail at Windows........................................................... 103 Figure 75: Scupper Detail at Trellis Support. ........................................................... 104 Figure 76: Typical Post Base Detail. ........................................................................ 105 Figure 77: Structural Framing Details. ..................................................................... 106 Figure 78: Courtyard Details. ................................................................................... 107 Figure 79: Walkway Lighting................................................................................... 108 Figure 80: Sliding Door Details for Break-Out Room.............................................. 109 Figure 81: Structural Support at Tower. ................................................................... 110 Figure 82: Framing Assembly. ................................................................................. 111 Figure 83: Dining Room. .......................................................................................... 112 Figure 84: Courtyard Wall Section and Assembly Detail. ....................................... 113 Figure 85: Partial Wall Elevation. ............................................................................ 114 Figure 86: Site Section, (Illustration Broken into Four Parts). ................................. 115 Figure 87: Cross Section Looking South. ................................................................. 115 Figure 88: Cross Section Looking North. ................................................................. 116 Figure 89: Front Elevation. ....................................................................................... 116
viii
Figure 90: Enlargement of South Courtyard Wall.................................................... 116 Figure 91: Tower Garden Level Plan..................................................................... 117 Figure 92: Tower Second and Third Level Plans. ................................................. 117
ix
Chapter 1: Introduction
The Chesapeake Bay offers hundreds of miles of coastline, much of it within reach of the Baltimore and Washington DC metro areas. Unfortunately, a significant amount of waterfront property appears to be in hands of private owners, affording very little public use. The beauty of the Bay and its shores are worth sharing, and it would seem that more interactive exposure to the Bay would help local environmental foundations spread the word about the health of the Bay and spawn a stronger sense of ownership by its waterfront residents. Beverly-Triton Beach, just a few towns south of Annapolis, is an abandoned park that has not been used for years. The park is strategically located amongst three suburban neighborhoods, all of which show potential for growth and would benefit from a public recreation area on the Bay. A revitalization of such a park would be an excellent opportunity to better share the Chesapeake. There is at least one local example of a successful waterfront park which has become a valuable asset to nearby Annapolis. Quiet Waters Park is situated between the South River and Harness Creek and offers walking trails, water vistas, boating, playgrounds and picnicking sites. Though quite popular to nearby residents, the park is costly to tax-payers: it has a yearly operating budget of $500,000. (Jefferery Mauck, park ranger for Beverly-Triton Beach Park, personal interview by David Tudryn, October 15, 1996). Its not likely the residents around Beverly-Triton Beach Park, however, could easily afford to support a park for their neighborhood. In order to raise the necessary funds to renovate and maintain a park with features similar to Quiet Waters Park, part of the four hundred acres of Beverly-Triton Beach Park will 1
be allocated to the University of Maryland for the development of a non-profit conference center for use by the university as well as other governmental organizations. As a stipulation to the land transfer, the University will be responsible for overseeing the development of a park master plan and after its implementation will assume some of the yearly maintenance costs of the park. A conference center is perhaps the most appropriate private building for the site because it requires a tranquil retreat setting that inspires not only un-distracted thought, but promotes relaxation. The calm waters of the Chesapeake and the serenity of the small lakes furnish a perfect setting for this type of program, and many precedents are available to examine how this relationship between building and site are made. In an effort to minimize impact on the natural aesthetic present along the Chesapeake Bay shoreline, design for the proposed conference center will entail a study of naturally occurring forms, materials and textures, as well as architecture considered to be vernacular for this waterfront area. Every opportunity will be made to make this building in context to the landscape, but at the same time provide the university with a comfortable, marketable, memorable building. The scale of the program will allow for the exploration of architectural detail at a finite level and provide an opportunity to examine building technique as an important tool in the design process. Any other manipulation to the natural landscape for recreational purposes will be made in a manner that retains the current aesthetic and allows for both public and university use. The intention of this exercise after all, is too make a well designed, highly detailed, private building that also gives something valuable back to the public.
2
Chapter 2: Site Analysis
Project Coordinates: Latitude: 385249.65 N, Longitude: 763008.09W
Site Location
The proposed site is located along the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay, just south of the South River in Mayo, Maryland. Mayo is approximately 18 miles from the Capital Beltway, 27 miles from downtown Baltimore, and 22 miles from the University of Maryland at College Park. Maryland Routes 50 and 214 provide direct access to the proposed site.
Figure 1: Site Location Plan. Mayo is located just south of Annapolis within twenty-five miles of the two metropolitan beltways. Not to Scale
3
Site Boundaries
Beverly-Triton Beach Park, a beachfront park facility once considered a thriving beach and recreation area, retains boundaries along its north edge at Triton Beach Road, its west edge at Cedar Avenue, its south edge at Grande View, and its east edge, of course, the Chesapeake Bay. A small width of the park also extends south of Grande View between the Bay and Chesapeake Avenue. Due to its proximity to the surrounding residential community, this narrow parcel appears to be the most highly utilized area of the park, attracting children on bicycles, dog-walkers, and fishermen. The location of the park between several residential areas makes it a potentially valuable asset to the community, one that at this time acts as more of a divider between communities due to its enormous size. At almost 400 acres, the park is currently too large to manage as an open public facility. Economic aid for development of the park as a public facility would not only help to create a new found amenity but also a critical civic link between the neighborhoods.
4
Figure 2: Neighborhood and Project Site Boundaries. Scale: 1=2000-0
5
Figure 3: Photo of Beverly-Triton Beach Park Looking South (edge of project site).
Neighborhood Character/Density
Mayo The community of Mayo is almost entirely residential except for spotted commercial development along Route 214, the primary street. The town has a piecemeal grid layout with 150 foot wide blocks, permitting typical lot sizes of 75 feet by 30 feet. Most of the residences are single story bungalow-style dwellings built after World War II (See Figure 4). On average they are in fair condition, with little or no modern renovation having occurred. Several vacant lots are being developed, most of which are two story structures that take advantage of the adjacent lower residences and provide water views. Houses along the waterfront are also quite modest, but are generally modernized with larger windows and decks. Overall the
6
neighborhood seems to have suffered from some neglect but generally shows promise.
Figure 4: Typical Housing Typologies within the Adjacent Neighborhoods.
Saunders Point To the north of Beverly-Triton Beach Park there are several developments, including Saunders Point, Harbor View and West Shoreham (see Figure 5). Neither Harbor View nor West Shoreham are directly adjacent the site, but both could still benefit from a nearby recreational area. Saunders Point is a rather new development that shares the same access road as the north entry to the site. Because of its location of a peninsula, there is only one way in and out of the development, namely Triton Beach Road. The road is approximately 30 feet wide with large rights-of-way to either side, making expansion feasible. Houses in the neighborhood are marginally larger than those of Mayo, especially along the waterfront. Lot sizes are less regulated and vary considerably from deep, narrow sites along the water to the standard 75-foot by 30-foot lot inland. Saunders Point is quite a bit smaller than Mayo and has the illusion of a more exclusive neighborhood. Real estate appears better maintained than most of Mayo, and the development of an adjacent park for its residences would surely make this small community thrive. A comfortable 500-foot
7
wooded buffer zone currently exists between the southernmost development and the parks north entry, permitting a reasonable separation in the event of use of this entry for recreational use.
8
Figure 5: Neighborhood Densities. Beverly-Triton Park is shown in the center. Scale: 1=2000-0
9
Traffic Flow
The most direct entry to the site is Route 214 which runs along the northernmost edge of Mayo (see Figure 6). The scale of this route could easily accommodate additional traffic flow from the conference center, and because of the streets partially commercial nature would cause the least amount of impact to the area. Assuming the university conference center hosts only one event per week, increased traffic flow would be about 100 to 150 cars per week traveling in and out of the site. Because the center is indented as an all inclusive establishment, minimal traffic flow should occur during a conference, but there will be some delivery service requirements. The refurbishment of the park would also increase traffic flow especially on weekends in the summer months. Calculation of an exact amount is not within the scope of this exercise. There is also a parcel suitable to provide additional parking spaces at the northern edge of the park boundary at Triton Beach Road. This area is already cleared and is immediately adjacent the north entry. Locating the access point to the new park to Triton Beach Road would also help to minimize impact on one specific neighborhood and prevent confusion between conference center and recreation area parking. Signs already direct beach traffic toward Triton Beach Road for access to Mayo Beach, a nearby public facility on the South river. Expansive right-of-way on this road would easily accommodate the overflow of traffic typical to hot summer weekends without interfering with private residential property. No infrastructure improvements would be necessary to Route 214 as the road is already wide enough to allow any increased traffic flow. Furthermore, since
10
most of the commercial development in Mayo occurs west of the Route 214 - Triton Beach Road split, shopkeepers would benefit equally from either proposed function.
Figure 6: Existing Roads. Route 214 connects the site directly to Route 50, providing direct access to the Washington metropolitan area. Scale: 1=2000-0
Existing Site Structures
Several pavilions exist along the edge of the Bay dating back to the 1950s (see Figure 12). Their current condition is fair to poor, with most of the structure
11
intact. In their present state they pose dangerous hazard to children that play along the nearby shoreline. The southernmost pavilion measures 80 feet by 70 feet and the other 250 feet by 60 feet with a 38 foot by 22-foot addition on the northern side. Both pavilions have low pitched roofs measuring 25 feet and 22 feet to the peaks, respectively. Although infill between the structural steel columns no longer exists, remnants of removable wooden panels with screens appear in stacks throughout the site. A clerestory of mostly broken glass panels runs along the bottom edge of the roof. Inside of the panels knee bracing laterally supports the 12-foot columns, and the connection is detailed delicately enough to imply that some time was taken in the development of a modest but playful aesthetic for the buildings. The long, squatty proportion of these buildings provides beautifully framed views outward to the Chesapeake Bay and the eastern shore. After inquiring with a local resident on the history of Beverly-Triton Beach Park, its clear that the past use of these pavilions was gambling casinos which once attracted hundreds of gamblers to Mayo in the summer months (anonymous Mayo resident, personal interview by David Tudryn, September 18, 1996). Gambling continued there until the 1960s when gambling was made illegal throughout Anne Arundel County and much of Maryland. The construction of the Bay Bridge twin span then enticed gamblers to the more grandiose scale of Atlantic City. The thriving nightlife of Mayo is long since gone, and the pavilions remain only as remnants of a more playful era. The immense scale and the relatively intact appearance of the existing pavilions warrant further study for inclusion into either the recreational or conference center programs of the park.
12
Vegetation
An aerial photograph taken in 1952 illustrates forestation of the site as it existed during the parks use as a large recreation area (see Figure 7). These areas of vegetation have since matured and are for the most part healthy. Areas showed cleared by the 1952 photograph have been repopulated by 1991 with trees and low ground cover appearing in equally good health (see Figure 8). Vegetation is both deciduous and evergreen. Tree canopies within the old growth rise to 50 feet with calipers ranging from several inches to about 16 inches. In the new growth areas, canopies rise to about 30 feet with calipers up to 9 inches (see Figure 9). The current state of the vegetation does not imply any one specific area more suitable for development except for a 250-foot by 80-foot wide area consisting of tall grass that had been previously been cleared, likely by a forest fire. Because the area falls within the 100-foot required buffer area, (refer the section on zoning, this chapter) it is unsuitable for use but its existence would provide for breathtaking views outward to the Bay from within the site. Additionally, the parcel of land between Deep Pond and the Chesapeake is cleared, allowing for views over the pond outward to the bay (See viewpoints diagram, figure 11). In order to minimize deforestation and development costs, use of the current dirt road off Route 214 will be strongly considered as a main entry to the conference center facility.
13
Figure 7: Aerial Photograph taken in 1952.
14
Figure 8: Aerial Photograph taken in 1991.
15
Figure 9: Vegetation. Scale: 1=400-0
16
Topography and Land Features
The proposed site ranges from 27 feet above sea level to 0 feet along the edge of the Chesapeake Bay. Grading is generally flat with the exceptions of the shorelines along the ponds and the bay. No significant slopes are detectable while walking the site, but grading percentages range from 3 to 20 percent overall. Two noticeable hilltops exist, one along the edge of the bay south of Deep Pond and the other at the southern edge of Deep Pond 500 feet inland (see Figure 10). Current grading will easily accommodate the conference center facility without any significant grade changes occurring to constitute a sectional shift of the ground plane. The two existing hilltops may provide ideal points to place program space requiring views out to the Bay. Any significantly steep grading will be avoided, again to minimize impact to the existing site. Several steep edges occur along Deep pond, suggesting areas that are more suitable for elements of the program that could utilize water views. Additional shallow edges along the pond must be avoided to retain natural wetlands.
17
Figure 10: Site Topography. The contour interval depicted here is two feet. The site varies minimally in elevation Scale: 1=400-0
18
Sun Path and Prevailing Winds
Because the shoreline meanders in a southwestern direction along the site, there is an opportunity to provide southern exposure for a majority of program while at the same time retaining views out toward the Bay (see Figure 11). An ideal building shape would to advantage of ample early morning light and indirect light at the noon hour with minimized building surface at the southwestern end to lesson heat gain from the afternoon sun. Eastern sunlight is preferable for the dormitories in the morning, encouraging an early rise for participation in the conferences. The meeting facilities do not require any distracting light or views, but the break-out areas and prefunction areas could take advantage of moderate sunlight and views of the bay or the pond. These facilities will most likely be located inboard of the dormitories so as to take advantage of the tranquility of the wooded site. Of course, strong summer sun in any large amount is not favorable in any part of the facility, so care will be taken to limit low altitude light through the use of the natural landscape and shading devices. Prevailing winds are from the southwest for most of the year (see Figure 11), but in the summer the humidity and land/water temperatures cause more calm days. Generally, there is at least some breeze coming off the water combined with cool from Deep Pond, both of which are attainable by situating the building close to the waters edge. Due to its natural setting, there are no adverse foul smelling winds on the site. Conceptual studies within the chapter four make every attempt to maximize natural sunlight and ventilation for each program requirement, as well as to provide views to the Bay and the Pond where appropriate.
19
Figure 11: Sun Path and Prevailing Winds. Scale: 1=400-0
20
Additional Site Features
The shoreline of the Chesapeake not only provides breathtaking views and unobstructed sunrises, but offers a diversified catalog of natural materials. Installed to defend the shoreline from erosion, dozens of breakwaters protrude into the bay (see Figures 12 and 17). These piers are constructed mostly of stone rubble and the weathering on their surfaces has battered their shape, making them contrast nicely to the serenity of the water. The Bay has delivered numerous layers of articles along the shore, some of it refuse but most of it driftwood piled at some points a foot high. The tidal waters tend to reveal their contents only for a while before carrying the wood back into the Bay, but the presence of the driftwood continues sporadically throughout the year, climaxing after the spring thaw. The diversity and contrast of the objects along the shoreline suggest several materials and perhaps even an aesthetic that would make a building contextual at the waters edge.
Past Uses
As established earlier in this chapter, past use of the park was discovered to be a recreational area with gambling facilities on site. The largest facilities of the park, including the gambling pavilions, were adjacent Bream Pond on the southernmost edge of the site (see Figure 12). The pond included paddle boats and row boats, most of them now abandoned within the new tree growth. There were several other picnic pavilions within the park, some of them measuring up to 1200 square feet each. Concrete slabs remain at their locations, but there are no visible signs of the rest of their structure. In the 1952 photograph there appears to be a substantial amount of parking adjacent the gambling pavilions with at least 12 lanes visible (see Figure 7).
21
From the detectable amount of worn out grass areas within the park its doubtful that this parking was used exclusively for the pavilions-it probably also served as an entrance to the beach in the summer months. Deep Pond more aggressively approaches the shoreline of the Chesapeake, allowing literally no connection between the north and south parcels except at the beach. The existence of a well-traveled roadway at the north end suggests two separate recreational facilities, each with a different program. In fact, there are five remnants of cabins still visible along the northern shore of Deep Pond in ideal location for fishing and secluded enough to be vacation cottages (see Figure 14). Most of the roads on either side of the pond still exist as dirt pathways through the park. There is a possibility of reclaiming the old gambling pavilions for a similar or related use. That use may be for the conference center, the public, or both, but its adaptive reuse might increase utilization of the park space and at the same time provide an additional amenity to the conference center program.
22
Figure 12: The Beachfront Pavilions. These pavilions have access direct to the beach and may support a new function related to the public use of the park. Not to Scale.
23
Figure 13: Viewpoints. Scale: 1=400-0
24
Figure 14: General Site Features. Scale: 1=400-0
25
Zoning
Several types of zoning legislation govern the proposed conference center site, all of which are outlined in the Anne Arundel County Code and described below: Residential and Open Space Districts All residential areas adjacent the site are classified as R-5 zones, allowing for density up to 5 dwelling units per acre1 (see Figure 15). Currently development in the area averages around 1.7 units per acre with not enough land for sale to increase this figure substantially in the next few years. Even a modest increase in housing density would have minimal effect on area infrastructure since the access roads appear to have been sized for easy access to the once thriving waterfront casinos and public beach. Currently Triton-Beverly Beach Park itself and the undeveloped area southeast of Chesapeake Avenue is designated by zoning as an Open Space District (labeled OS). This classification restricts building uses to the following2:
1 2
Alcoholic beverage uses accessory to other uses Camps, nonprofit, including dormitories, cabins, and structures for administrative, maintenance, and custodial activities Commercial telecommunication facilities permanently located on the ground Conservation uses, practices, and structures for the maintenance of the natural environment Farming or nurseries, including truck gardening, grazing of livestock, and other similar activities if the use does not change the stability of the land Golf courses Home occupations Launching ramps Piers, private Piers, recreational Public utility essential services Public utility uses
Anne Arundel County, Anne Arundel County Code, Article 18-4-701 Anne Arundel County, Anne Arundel County Code, Article 18-9-202.
26
Residential uses, existing Staging areas for County capital projects Structures for administrative and custodial uses of the principal use of the site if building coverage, including parking, does not exceed 20% of the site and the structures are not located in the natural drainage system Structures, permanent, for hunting, golf courses, ice skating, nature study, picnic areas, play areas, and stables Structures, temporary, for boating, swimming, fishing, hunting, golf courses, ice skating, nature study, picnic areas, play areas, stables, and stands for the sale of products raised on the premises Volunteer fire stations
The construction of a conference center facility within the boundaries of BeverlyTriton Beach Park would not be permitted under current zoning legislation, necessitating a re-zoning proposal for the area in order to proceed. Critical Area Zoning The Anne Arundel County Code also labels part of the site as a Chesapeake Bay Critical Area. Critical Areas are defined as all wetlands and all land and water areas in the county within 1,000 feet measured planimetrically beyond the landward boundaries of tidal wetlands and the heads of tides.3 The intent of these areas is to minimize adverse impacts on water quality, conserve plant, fish and wildlife habitat, and foster more sensitive development activity for shoreline areas. The following Critical Area restrictions apply to the site: A 100-foot buffer from the landward boundaries of tidal wetlands is to be established, and development activities within the buffer are to be limited to water-dependent facilities. Deforestation within the 100-foot buffer is not allowed, except by approval of the Office of Planning and zoning (A buffer management plan for any disturbance within the buffer shall be required.) The pollutant loading shall be at least 10% below the level of pollution from the site prior to development.
3
Anne Arundel County, Anne Arundel County Code, Article 18-13-200
27
No more than 20% of any forest or developed woodland may be cleared for development. An additional 10% of the total forest may be disturbed with a replacement of 1 times the total acreage of disturbed forest in an alternative area of the site. Off-site forest replacement is allowed, but at a cost of 60 cents per square foot of disturbed forest. Corridors of existing forest or woodland vegetation that connect undeveloped or mostly vegetated tracts of land within and adjacent to the site shall be maintained. Impervious areas shall be limited to 15% of the development site. Development on slopes of 15% or greater is not permitted.
Careful treatment of the wooded areas will be necessary to allow for a minimum 20% deforestation. The maximum allowable impermeable surface area as a percentage of the total site will most likely govern the purchased lot size. Because the University would purchase the appropriate amount of land from the County, the luxury of backing in to this number is available. More conventional development might force build-able area and maximum impermeable surface areas to restrict the size of the program. There are a minimal amount of slopes present that approach 15%, most of which occur within the 100-foot buffer areas along the ponds and the Bay. Any deforestation approaching 20% could be reforested to the northwest of the intended development area between Deep Pond and the Bay, with additional areas available at the northwest corner of the park. Decreased pollutant loading is questionable considering the site is currently not developed, but the removal of several concrete slabs once used for picnic area (some of which measure 1200 square feet) might improve stormwater runoff filtering. The nature of a waterfront site makes it a highly restrictive area in terms of development, but current zoning regulations under the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Legislation have the same intent as the proposed project: to minimize adverse impacts of the Chesapeake Bay and its wildlife habitat. It is the aim of this exercise to comply
28
with all regulations set forth by this legislation, and to create a building that both functionally and aesthetically lives in harmony with the Bay.
Other General Conclusions
In addition to the responses to site analysis listed in the previous corresponding sections, the following additional positions have been derived: Most of the site analysis indicates the area between Bream and Deep ponds as the most favorable to develop. This area minimizes impact on the adjacent neighborhoods, takes the best advantage of natural land features, and minimizes deforestation within the park. It also allows for unhindered connections between potential north and south recreational facilities with both adjacent neighborhoods and accommodates zoning restrictions, with the exception of the necessary rezoning.
29
Figure 15: Existing Neighborhood Zoning. Scale: 1=400-0
30
Figure 16: Proposed Site after Proposed Re-Zoning. Scale: 1=400-0
31
Figure 17: Photo of Triton Beach Park Looking South.
Figure 18: Photo of Triton Beach Looking North.
32
Figure 19: Photo of Approach Road.
Figure 20: Photo of Access Road.
33
Figure 21: Photo of Remnants of Steel Buildings.
Figure 22: Photo of Inside of Old Steel Buildings.
34
Chapter 3: Program
This section works toward developing a building program through comparison of existing conference center programs, the needs of its users, and the relationship between specific programmatic elements to each other. The intention of this thesis, as stated in the introduction, is to develop a building in a scale that makes it possible to take the design to a very detailed level, delineating the building in great detail. Because of this, the desired program target will be around 50,000 square feet. A conference center was chosen because it provides programmatic elements in various scales, from the large conference meeting rooms to the individual dormitories. Because the success of the conference center relies on the satisfaction of its attendees, there is a need to make the spaces not only memorable, but comfortable. A conference center is different from other corporate and academic facilities in that it requires a quiet, secluded site that provides various leisure activities for its users. Another important factor in program scale is the impact of the building foot print on the park. Figures 23 through 28 illustrate the result of placing several other conference centers directly on the site. In each circumstance the buildings fit within the proposed site boundaries, but buildings below 10,000 square-feet tend to get lost in the vast landscape. Based on this direct application of square-footage to the proposed site and the desire to make a building that is developed to a finite scale of architectural detail, the range of acceptable program size will be above 10,000 square feet and below the mammoth conference center sizes of 200,000 square feet and up. The university will sponsor retreats for university organizations and other organizations that could benefit from a retreat-like setting. There are many examples 35
of the latter, including the Princeton University Conference Center4 and The Aspen Institute at Wye Plantation5. In fact, both local government organizations from Annapolis and federal government organizations from Washington DC could benefit from the proximity of the Mayo site. The scale of the facility would most likely attract the smaller groups of around 100 people, and meetings would generally last one week or over a single weekend.
4
5
Lawson, Congress, convention & exhibition facilities: planning, design and management, 159. The Aspen Institute. The Aspen Wye River Campus. http://www.aspeninstitute.org.
36
Figure 23: The Marigold Lodge Footprint on the Project Site. This conference center is 7,650 square feet distributed on two floors. Scale: 1=400
37
Figure 24: The Minnowbrook Lodge Footprint on the Project Site. This conference center is 8,800 square feet distributed on two floors. Scale: 1=400
38
Figure 25: The Council House Footprint on the Project Site. This conference center is 76,000 square feet distributed on two floors. Scale: 1=400
39
Figure 26: The GE Management Institute Footprint on the Project Site. This conference center is 113,000 square feet on three floors. Scale: 1=400
40
Figure 27: The GTE Development Center Footprint on the Project Site. This conference Center is 184,000 square feet on three floors. Scale: 1=400
41
Figure 28: The IBM Advanced Business Institute Footprint on the Project Site. This conference center is 410,000 square feet on three floors. Scale: 1=400
42
Program Comparisons
Table 1: Sample Programs, University Conference Centers6
in net square feet
University of Pennsylvania
Northwestern University
University of Michigan
Cornell University 150 494
Duke University
Philadelphia, PA
Babson College
Ann Arbor, MI
Durham, NC
Evanston, IL
Boston, MA
Total square ft. # of guestrooms Total square feet of guestrooms Square feet per guestroom Public areas Conference areas Administrative areas Back-of-house areas Recreation Average square feet per room
76,400 96 31,300 326 10,600 27,000
118,200 103 62,800 609 10,200 29,100
93,900 104 42,300 406 12,300 26,700
103,800 113 46,400 410 12,300 19,500
108,900 130 52,300 402 11,100 29,600
159,400
74,100
28,500 21,700
500
4,300
3,400
1,900
2,400
6,000
7,000 0 796
9,900 1,900 1,148
8,300 8,300 903
21,800 21,800 918
13,500 13,500 837
29,100 29,100 1,063
6
Penner, Conference Center Planning and Design, 66.
43
Ithaca, NY
Conference Center Program by Rooms and Areas
Guestrooms
It is anticipated that nearly all of the conference attendees will be staying at the center, therefore the number of guestrooms is directly proportional to the other program functions. Based on a significant amount of trial and error, there will be 96 guestrooms provided at 300 square feet each. Unlike corporate conference centers, university centers provide modest accommodations with minimal amenities7. The room will consist of its own private bathroom, a closet, a dresser, ample room for seating, a large desk. Although these rooms are intended for single occupancy, several types of functions may require a number of double occupancy rooms. Queensize beds will make the rooms easily convertible, and the total square-footage is enough to accommodate the extra person. Aside from a television, a clock and a computer, few electrical appliances will be provided, as the intent of the center is to discourage stay in the rooms and encourage participation in the conference. A significant amount of light and air should be present, especially early and late in the day when the occupant will be present. Good views are desirable, as well as direct access to leisure functions. Because the conference attendees will naturally have preconceptions of a university dormitory, attention must be taken not to design the guestrooms to look and feel like cramped college dorm rooms.
7
Lawson, Conference, convention and exhibition facilities, 65.
44
Figure 29: Samples of Guest Room Layouts.
45
Main Entry Lobby
In the interest of conserving space, the main entry lobby will act as a multifunctional room. All attendees will register here and proceed to the guestroom wing. Bell service will be very limited or non-existent, so easy access to the guestrooms is preferable. Small social areas within the lobby will be provided, as well as a reception desk and public phones. The lobby will also need to be convertible in order to house large receptions for the conferences. Because it is the largest room intended for both formal and informal social events and it provides the first impressions of the center to its attendees, the room deserves special attention to detail. There is an opportunity here to visually connect the center to the landscape by providing strong views outward from the lobby as well as significant light and air. The lobby will no doubt act as a connector between the conference and residential wings and provide a memorable space to relate the two architecturally.
Amphitheater
The two amphitheaters should be tiered in section to allow unobstructed viewing. Seating for 54 attendees will be provided in each room with a chair that incorporates writing and work surfaces. Rows of seating will most likely be curved to focus attention towards a small stage located front and center8. The room should include front screen projection for multimedia presentations, as well as adequate task and area lighting. Adjacent projection rooms will be large enough to allow for electronic equipment associated with interactive teaching including a computer with monitor, a server, and necessary overhead computer projection equipment. Natural
8
Lawson, Conference, convention and exhibition facilities, 72
46
lighting is optional, but its presence will necessitate the use of shading devices during presentations. Size of the amphitheaters will allow for an average of 25 square feet per seat.
Figure 30: Amphitheatre from the Steinberg Center, University of Pennsylvania.
Conference Areas
Both small and medium conference facilities will be included, accommodating 35 and 55 seats respectively. Floors in these rooms will be flat, but again with chairs providing work surfaces. Walls will require tack-able surfaces, presentation rails, and projection screens. The seating formal will be classroom style. Again, distracting landscape views are not desirable, but sufficient light and air is a necessity.
47
Breakout Rooms
Small scales of break-out rooms will be provided for focus groups, the larger ones accommodating 13 people at 25 square feet per person, and the smaller ones 10 people at the same square footage allowance. These spaces have a more personable nature and would benefit from landscaped views as well as natural ventilation.9 Seating here is much less formal and generally depends on the group leaders preferences. Flexible seating arrangements will necessitate nearby closets to store excess chairs and tables.
Dining Area
The dining area will contain around 115 seats, which averages 1.19 dining seats per guestroom. Although it is quite common in conference centers to provide dining tables in the kitchen for the staff10, extra seating is allocated here for visiting faculty. Dining areas for university conference centers average 30 to 35 square feet per guestroom11, and at 3,000 square feet, this dining room will average 31.25. Layout of the dining hall will most likely allow for movable tables around a buffet table. Proximity to conference areas is preferable, allowing conference attendees to use the dining facilities between scheduled meetings. Any other special receptions will be held in the main entry lobby, a space less tied to the necessary business environment of the conference wing.
Recreation Areas
The nature of the landscaped site is conducive to outdoor recreational activities. The conference center will share park amenities with the public, including
9
Lawson, Conference, convention and exhibition facilities, 91 Penner, Conference Center Planning and Design, 138. 11 Penner, Conference Center Planning and Design, 138.
10
48
swimming areas and beaches, jogging and walking trails, boating facilities, and gardens. The common areas adjacent the guestrooms will also serve as television rooms and provide convertible space for informal meetings. Additionally, an exercise room and lockers as well as a game room will be provided within the conference center residential wing. All recreational activities will be directly accessible from the guestrooms.
49
Figure 31: Application of Program Areas Relative to the Site. Placement of specific rooms is only approximate to their programmatic relationships.
50
Figure 32: Room Adjacencies. The tree line represents where a view is desirable. The large arrow represents the main entrance and the small arrow represents the loading/service entrance. Not to scale.
51
Final Program
Guest Accommodations Guestrooms 96 @ 300 Sq. Ft. Each Guest room Common areas Total, Guestroom and common areas Public Areas Main Entry Lobby (Also to serve as Ballroom) Support (storage areas for chairs/tables) Dining Room Library/Reading Room Support for Library Total, Public areas Conference Areas Medium Size Conference Areas 2@1200 Sq. Ft. each Small Conference Areas 2@900. Ft. each Breakout Rooms 2@325 Sq. Ft. 6@250 Sq. Ft. Amphitheater 2@1,400 Sq. Ft Projection Rooms 2@150 Sq. Ft. Storage Areas Pantry Total, Conference Areas Back-of-House Kitchen Receiving area with loading dock Employee dining and break areas Laundry and Housekeeping Areas Maintenance and Engineering Areas Total, Back-of-House Administrative Front Office and Reception Desk Executive Offices General Offices (accounting, management, booking) Total, Administrative Recreation Exercise Room Lockers and Toilets Total, Recreation Total Net Square Feet 28,800 3,000 31,800
2,500 300 3,000 500 200 6,500
2,400 1,800 650 1,500 2,800 300 500 200 10,150
3,000 1,000 1,000 1,500 4,000 10,500
600 800 1,300 2,700
800 400 1,200 62,850
52
Chapter 4: Precedent
Conference Centers
Although the majority of the conference centers illustrated are larger in scale than the proposed program, each one has some architectural significance and presents image-able architectural space and/or takes a position toward its presence in the natural landscape. Below is a list of Conference Centers that were examined for this project: IBM Advanced Business Institute, Palisades, New York Battelle Seattle Conference Center, Seattle, Washington Minnowbrook Lodge, Blue Mountain Lake, New York McDonalds Lodge and Training Center GE Management Development Institute, Croton-on-Hudson, New York GTE Management Development Center, Norwalk, Connecticut IBM Management Development Center, Armonk, New York
53
Figure 33: IBM Advanced Business Institute. Plan Configuration.
54
Figure 34: IBM Advanced Business Institute. Break-out Rooms.
The IBM Advanced Business Institute, despite its overwhelming size of 410,000 square feet, appears to exhibit the ideal diagram for the program of a conference center and thus is illustrated here in detail.
55
Figure 35: IBM Advanced Business Institute. Original Sketch of Dining Area.
56
Figure 36: IBM Advanced Business Institute. Original Sketch of Exterior.
57
Buildings in the Landscape
The architecture illustrated here is used as precedent toward approaches to dealing with the organization of the program or the relationship of the building to the landscape. Fallingwater, Bear Run, Pennsylvania Salk Institute, La Jolla, California Lake Washington House, Seattle Pool Pavilion in Pennsylvania by Bohlin Cywinski Jackson Katsura Villa, Japan
58
Figure 37: Fallingwater, Bear Run, Pennsylvania. Original Sketch.
59
Figure 38: Salk Institute, La Jolla, California. Original Sketch.
60
Figure 39: Lake Washington House, Seattle. Original Sketch.
61
Figure 40: Pool Pavilion in Pennsylvania. Original Sketch.
62
Figure 41: Katsura Villa, Japan. Original Sketch.
63
Figure 42: Katsura Villa, Japan-Delineation of Building Edge. Original Sketch.
64
Figure 43: Katsura Villa, Japan-Shoji Screens. Original Sketch.
65
Vernacular Forms
Precedents listed in this section are forms, not necessarily architectural, that are common to the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic coastline. They dont represent opportunities for metaphorical imagery so much as they are a general catalog of local forms that may provide options for material uses and textures and imagery.
Figure 44: Driftwood Washed up Along the Chesapeake Bay
66
Figure 45: Stone Breakwaters along the Chesapeake.
Details of Assembly
Through the study of various Bohlin, Cywinski Jackson projects and of various Japanese joinery techniques, a strong appreciation for careful detailing became a strong influence in this project. The following illustrations not only describe how careful attention to detailing can help to strengthen the architectural language of the design, but how it can be beautifully and clearly illustrated to depict the relationship and assembly of the parts.
67
Figure 46: Vanity and Towel Rack, Bohlin Cywinski Jackson. Original Sketch.
68
Figure 47: Japanese Joinery Shiribasami tsugi (scarf joint).12
12
Nakahara, Yasua. Japanese joinery, 180.
69
Figure 48: A Lattice Window of a Merchants House - Takayama, Japan.13
13
Hibi, Sabao. Japanese detail architecture, 55.
70
Chapter 5: Design Approach
Figure 49: Concept 1 Sketch.
Concept 1
This concept utilizes smaller units that are connected by hexagonal-sh...