Anne Arundel Hall Partial Reuse Report

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Anne Arundel Hall Partial Reuse Report"

Maude Gallagher
5 years ago
Views:

1 St. Mary s City, MD Anne Arundel Hall Partial Reuse Report 1850 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006

The purpose of this design study was to define the criteria and frame a decision-making process for the retention or replacement of portions of Anne Arundel Hall.

2 The purpose of this design study was to define the criteria and frame a decision-making process for the retention or replacement of portions of Anne Arundel Hall. This study is to supplement the 2007 Report Analysis of Adaptive Re- Use for Anne Arundel Hall, which examined a complete reuse of AAH. This report aims to document the analysis of the study and communicate the pros and cons of retaining a portion of Anne Arundel Hall. In this effort studied Anne Arundel Hall as it relates to Site Planning and Development, Sustainability, Program, and Architectural Design Context for the following three options. Option 1: Option 1a: Option 2: Option 3: Retain only the main wing of AAH for new AAH program. Build a new structure for the remaining AAH and MHIC program. Retain the foundation of the main wing of AAH and build a new building on this footprint. Retain only the 2 story block (former library). Build a new structure for the remaining AAH and MHIC program. Demolish the entire AAH building. Build a new structure for the entire AAH and MHIC program. During the study held a design charrette on April 21 with and landscape architect, Michael Vergason, to review the pros and cons of the three options. This report summarizes the site analysis, investigations, and conclusions of the charrette and is organized by Site Considerations, Sustainable Design Considerations, and Program Considerations. 1

3 Views to and from Anne Arundel Hall View from Middle Street toward AAH View from North Campus toward AAH View from roof of AAH toward Middle Street 2 Approach to AAH

Site Considerations Site Analysis consisted of studying existing building plans, site documentation, and available archeological data to illustrate existing conditions, constraints, parameters of the

Pro: Keeping the existing building preserves the memory of the existing building while adapting it for the new program.

4 Site Considerations Site Analysis consisted of studying existing building plans, site documentation, and available archeological data to illustrate existing conditions, constraints, parameters of the site. These backgrounds were used to test a series of over arching campus planning principles and philosophies for the site. Pro: Keeping the existing building preserves the memory of the existing building while adapting it for the new program. Retention minimizes construction disturbances on site that could affect archeology. Con: The existing building blocks the continuation of Middle Street. Reopening of Middle Street will assist in visitor orientation and further integrate the campus into St. Mary s City history. Building on the Street does not send the right message (nor demonstrates sensitivity) for the interpretive center, archeology department nor the museum studies program. Current building dominates the HSMC landscape from the town center. If portions of the existing 2 story building are used for academic class rooms and offices, the interpretive center will need to move south to become visible and obvious from the visitor parking area. This will push the visitor center into saturated areas of archeology. The site topography and demand for contained outdoor space is significantly constrained with retention of the existing building. Aligning floor levels with new construction will be more complicated with the existing levels and will result in ramps and or additional elevators. Keeping only the library wing results in an either free standing pavilion of awkward proportions or would have a negative impact on any new construction connected to it due to the height of the finished floor at several feet above grade. This makes it difficult to satisfy ADA accessibility requirements. 3

5 Trinity Church Anne Arundel Hall and Brent Hall Historic St. Mary s City Reconstructions Historic St. Mary s City Ghost Frames Old State House Road Route 5 St. Mary s River 4

6 Option 1 Keep main wing of AAH Option 1a Build on foundation of main wing of AAH Trinity Church Anne Arundel Hall and Brent Hall Historic St. Mary s City Reconstructions Historic St. Mary s City Ghost Frames Archeological site - high sensitivity area Archeological site - medium sensitivity area 5

7 6

8 Option 2 Keep Library wing of AAH Site Conclusions Retaining the existing building complicates a site already layered with obstacles including subsurface archeology, steeply sloping topography and mature trees. The existing floor levels of the hall will be onerous to connect with the new floor elevations resulting in multiple ramps and/or elevators. The existing building also closes off the original Middle Street axis which, since its construction, has been identified and represented. Retaining the existing main building for the classroom facility will require that the interpretive center encroach on the southern nose of the site, diminishing the city view shed from Route 5. Trinity Church Anne Arundel Hall and Brent Hall Historic St. Mary s City Reconstructions Historic St. Mary s City Ghost Frames 7 Archeological site - high sensitivity area Archeological site - medium sensitivity area

9 8

10 Sustainable Design Considerations The evaluation of the sustainability considerations of reusing a portion of AAH examined a holistic range of environmental impacts, including material conservation and embodied energy, preserving cultural resources, minimizing site disturbances, and promoting operational energy efficiency. These impacts are summarized below. Reduced Embodied Energy 1 Pro: By updating existing buildings for new purposes, adaptive re-use extends the life-cycle of a building by conserving materials. Development will have less embodied carbon if existing structures remain. This fact must be qualified by the following considerations. Even if a portion of AAH is reused, there would be considerable demolition and new construction to restore AAH so that it meets the project s requirements. All interior finishes, mechanical / electrical / plumbing equipment, windows, attic floor would need to be replaced. Portions of the exterior wall, interior walls, interior floors, and existing stairs would need to be replaced. As a result, the reused existing building would have some embodied carbon. The embodied carbon of new development can be reduced by sustainable materials selection and by salvaging or reusing the demolition waste from AAH. If all of the materials that would have been reused in AAH were salvaged and reincorporated into the new development, then the embodied carbon between the energy use to dismantle and reinstall the materials.) The materials that would remain in a reused AAH largely consist of brick, cinder block, concrete, steel, wood doors, and slate roofing. These can be directly and indirectly reused in the new development. Brick can either be salvaged / reused as masonry veneers or can be ground and used as subbase underneath future permeable paving. Cinder block and concrete can be used as subbase as well. The slate roofing is in good condition and can be reused to roof future development. Wood doors can be salvaged and reused in the new development. 1 Embodied energy (or embodied carbon) is a measure of the amount of energy required to extract, manufacturer, transport, and construct the materials that comprise a building. 9

Preserving Cultural Resources Pro: Retaining the existing building preserves the cultural significance of AAH. This fact must be qualified by the following considerations.

11 Preserving Cultural Resources Pro: Retaining the existing building preserves the cultural significance of AAH. This fact must be qualified by the following considerations. AAH is not a historically significant structure. It does hold nostalgic value since it has been part of the campus for over 50 years. Reusing portions of the building in the new development, like the entrance portico and the entrance exterior lanterns, can retain its historic features. Salvaging bricks, slates, and doors will retain the memory of the building. Limiting Site Disturbances Neutral: Adaptive Re-use of structures maintains development within previously developed sites. This benefit is not a relevant factor because regardless of whether AAH is preserved, all new development will occur on this previously developed site. If the AAH is demolished and all new development is limited to previously disturbed portions of the site, then the extent of site disturbance is the same regardless of whether AAH is reused or not. 10

12 Promotes Energy Efficiency Buildings use 76% of the US electricity consumption, and the vast majority of electricity in the United States is made by burning fossil fuels, the source of global warming. Over the life of a campus building, the energy used to operate a building is over three times more than the energy used to construct the same building. The US Green Building Council s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEEDTM) rating system has weighted sustainable design considerations accordingly, prioritizing sustainable goals that reduce operational energy. A balanced sustainable assessment of AAH must factor the potential operational energy use of a renovated AAH against that of building a new, high-performance new green building. Con: The envelope of AAH is poorly insulated. Windows can be replaced with new, efficient glazing, but windows represent a small portion of the building envelope Highly insulated envelopes play a critical role in green buildings, and envelope improvements can result in a 20% increase in energy performance. The existing masonry walls have little insulation and no thermal barrier. Adding insulation and vapor barriers will have limitations, and hygro-thermal analysis would be required to ensure proposed improvements will not create moisture migration issues. The exterior envelope of a new building can out-perform the improved envelope of a renovated AAH. Con: The orientation of AAH does not support passive solar design. The primary axis of the building is to NW-SE, resulting in long elevations oriented to the SW. Low sun angles make solar control difficult to implement on SW facades. The NW and NE facades of the building will receive little solar heat gain during winter months, negating the possibility for passive solar heating. Con: The orientation of AAH does not support daylighting Southwest and Southeast facing facades are subject to low sun angles making glare difficult to control Northwest and Northeast faces will receive little direct natural light during winter months. Con: The orientation of AAH does not support passive cooling (natural ventilation) The long elevations of the building are not oriented perpendicular to prevalent breezes, making cross ventilation difficult to achieve. 11

13 Pro: The building fenestration supports daylighting and natural ventilation. Large and frequently spaced windows provide adequate daylight so that most spaces can be daylit on a sunny day without relying on artificial lighting. Double-hung windows in classrooms can promote natural ventilation. The former library can be restored to its original tall volume. Using the vents in the existing eyebrow dormers as air outlets would promote stack ventilation airflow. These benefits are offset by the undesirable orientation mentioned above. Sustainable Design Conclusions Partial reuse of AAH will result in lower embodied energy for the planned development, but by reusing and salvaging significant portions of the demolition waste from AAH in a newly constructed AAH replacement, the resulting development will have a similar low embodied energy. Even with extensive improvements to the existing AAH, limitations to envelope improvements, and immutable undesirable building orientation suggests that a sustainably designed new development will have a better operational energy use. Given the significance of operational energy use, the holistic sustainable design benefit to reusing AAH is either neutral or less favorable than constructing a state-of-the-art, energy-efficient, new building. Replacing AAH with a conventional, unsustainable building would result in a negative environmental impact. Sustainability is an important consideration for St. Mary s College, and any plans that include the full demolition of AAH should include aggressive construction waste management and salvage of existing building components and high energy-performance goals for the replacement building. 12

Program Considerations A series of test fits of all or parts of the AAH and MHIC program were assessed in the Main wing and the Library wing.

efficiency. Pro: Con: AAH program fits in existing main wing (Option 1a). MHIC program fits on first floor of main wing (Option 1b).

Existing structure restricts ability to create public spaces and open up entry. Not suitable for HSMC lab portion due to loading and environmental requirements.

14 Program Considerations A series of test fits of all or parts of the AAH and MHIC program were assessed in the Main wing and the Library wing. Important criteria in the test fits include program adjacencies, required heights of spaces, building entry and delivery points, extent of renovation needed, structural restrictions, and building efficiency. Pro: Con: AAH program fits in existing main wing (Option 1a). MHIC program fits on first floor of main wing (Option 1b). Blackistone Room or several classrooms fit in Library wing (Option 2.) Extensive intervention is required to accommodate new programs and bring up to code. Existing structure restricts ability to create public spaces and open up entry. Not suitable for HSMC lab portion due to loading and environmental requirements. Wide floor plate (58 ) and window spacing at 7-9 limits efficient office planning. Not suitable for the image of the interpretive center and not configurable for circular flow of public spaces. Elevation of existing Library wing is several feet above grade which would require excessive ramps to meet ADA code. Program Conclusions It was determined that while different components of the Anne Arundel Hall or Maryland Heritage Interpretive Center programs could fit in the existing structure, the function and efficiency of these programmatic parts would be greatly compromised and extensive renovation would be required. In addition, the existing main wing prescribes a linear and bifurcated experience and does not allow for a circular museum circulation. Window spacing Sectional change Corridor condition 13

15 Option 1a- 1st floor Windows are spaced 7-9 on center; difficult for office layout creating offices that are too narrow or very large. Additional space for small classroom Support Med. Classroom 600 Class Lab 450 Lab Support 120 Stor 100 Stud. Proj. 250 Women s Room Men s Room Small Classroom 500 Seminar 400 Additional Classroom Typ. Office Exhibit display Seminar 480 Multi-Pur. Classroom 500 Blackistone Room 1100 Exhibit display Typ. Office Instructional Technologist Center for Democracy 260 Middle Street Option 1a- 2nd floor Windows are spaced 7-9 on center; difficult for office layout creating offices that are too narrow or very large. Wide floor plate = 58 ; limits efficient office planning Typ. Office Limited live loads Women s Room Support Men s Room Support Seminar 480 Language Lab 770 Stud. Proj. 120 Medium Classroom 600 Middle Street 14

16 Option 1b- 1st floor Floor to Clg. Height = 11-0 not ideal for exhibits Opportunity to open up double height space for galleries Limited Environmental Control Opportunity to open ends to take advantage of views Permanent Exhibits Gallery 2025 Women s Room Visitor Center Office 150 Men s Room Video Orientation Theater 800 Special Exhibits Gallery 1000 Visitor Lobby 600 Exhibit Prep/ Storage 250 Permanent Exhibits Gallery 500 Load/ Rec v 100 Permanent Exhibits Gallery 2025 Middle Street Option 1b- 2nd floor Women s Room Men s Room Swing Space Middle Street 15

Blackistone Room from 1100 nsf to 1835 nsf c) Classrooms 2 Medium classrooms and

17 Option 2-1st floor a) Blackistone Room and support space (Bathrooms, Catering Kitchen, Storage) These support spaces currently not in program b) Larger Blackistone Room Enlarge Blackistone Room from 1100 nsf to 1835 nsf c) Classrooms 2 Medium classrooms and Multi-purpose classroom Library wing of AAH from Route 5 16 Interior corridor in Library wing of AAH

18 Summary Based on the challenges of the site planning, sustainability criteria, and programmatic needs it was determined that the challenges of retaining portions of Anne Arundel Hall far outweighed the positives. Proceeding with the existing buildings would severely compromise the site planning principles and would force a program into an inappropriate space. The sustainable design benefit would be neutral or less favorable than constructing a new energy-efficient building. The group decided to pursue Option 3, demolition of Anne Arundel Hall, and to design a new building or buildings to house the Anne Arundel Hall, Historic St. Mary s City, and the Maryland Heritage Interpretive Center programs in order to meet the goals of the project. 17

Project Parameters. Project Timeline. APS Strategic Plan - Design Principles. Adjourn

Project Parameters. Project Timeline. APS Strategic Plan - Design Principles. Adjourn Project Parameters Project Timeline Project included in the FY09-8 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Renovate the Education Center to both increase the capacity of WashingtonLee initially, and later to adapt