anne arundel hall partial reuse report · anne arundel hall partial reuse report st. mary’s...

St. Mary’s College of MarylandSt. Mary’s City, MD

Anne Arundel Hall Partial Reuse Report

May 4, 2009

SmithGroup

1850 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006

Anne Arundel Hall Partial Reuse Report St. Mary’s College of Maryland

May 4, 2009SmithGroup

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 SmithGroup studied Anne Arundel Hall as it relates to Site Planning and Develop-ment, Sustainability, Program, and Architectural Design Context for the following three options.

Option 1: Retain only the main wing of AAH for new AAH program. Build a new structure for the remaining AAH and MHIC program.Option 1a: Retain the foundation of the main wing of AAH and build a new building on this footprint.Option 2: Retain only the 2 story block (former library). Build a new structure for the remaining AAH and MHIC program.Option 3: Demolish the entire AAH building. Build a new structure for the entire AAH and MHIC program. During the study SmithGroup held a design charrette on April 21 with St. Mary’s College of Maryland 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 Con-siderations, Sustainable Design Considerations, and Program Considerations.

1



View from North Campus toward AAH

View from Middle Street toward AAH

View from roof of AAH toward Middle Street Approach to AAH

Views to and from Anne Arundel Hall

2



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



St. Mary’s RiverOld State House Road

Route 5

St. Mary’s College of Maryland

Trinity Church

Anne Arundel Hall and Brent Hall

Historic St. Mary’s City Reconstructions

Historic St. Mary’s City Ghost Frames

4



Option 1Keep main wing of AAH

Option 1aBuild on foundation of main wing of AAH


Trinity Church




Archeological site - high sensitivity area

Archeological site - medium sensitivity area

5





6



Option 2Keep Library wing of AAH


Trinity Church






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.

7





8



Sustainable Design Considerations

The evaluation of the sustainability considerations of reusing a portion of AAH examined a holistic range of environ-mental 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 Energy1

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.

• EvenifaportionofAAHisreused,therewouldbeconsiderabledemolitionandnewconstructiontorestore AAH so that it meets the project’s requirements. All interior finishes, mechanical / electrical / plumbing equip- ment, 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.

• Theembodiedcarbonofnewdevelopmentcanbereducedbysustainablematerialsselectionandby 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.)

• ThematerialsthatwouldremaininareusedAAHlargelyconsistofbrick,cinderblock,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 Embodiedenergy(orembodiedcarbon)isameasureoftheamountofenergyrequiredtoextract,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.

• AAHisnotahistoricallysignificantstructure.Itdoesholdnostalgicvaluesinceithasbeenpartofthe campus for over 50 years.

• Reusingportionsofthebuildinginthenewdevelopment,liketheentranceporticoandtheentrance 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.

• IftheAAHisdemolishedandallnewdevelopmentislimitedtopreviouslydisturbedportionsofthe site, then the extent of site disturbance is the same regardless of whether AAH is reused or not.

10



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 oper-ate a building is over three times more than the energy used to construct the same building. The US Green Building Council’sLeadershipinEnergyandEnvironmentalDesign(LEEDTM)ratingsystemhasweightedsustainabledesignconsiderations accordingly, prioritizing sustainable goals that reduce operational energy. A balanced sustainable as-sessment 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.

• Windowscanbereplacedwithnew,efficientglazing,butwindowsrepresentasmallportionofthebuilding envelope

• Highlyinsulatedenvelopesplayacriticalroleingreenbuildings,andenvelopeimprovementscanresultina 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.

• TheprimaryaxisofthebuildingistoNW-SE,resultinginlong elevations oriented to the SW. Low sun angles make solar control

difficult to implement on SW facades.

• TheNWandNEfacadesofthebuildingwillreceivelittlesolarheat gain during winter months, negating the possibility for passive solar heating.

Con:The orientation of AAH does not support daylighting

• SouthwestandSoutheastfacingfacadesaresubjecttolowsun angles making glare difficult to control

• NorthwestandNortheastfaceswillreceivelittledirectnatural light during winter months.

Con:The orientation of AAH does not support passive cooling (natural ventilation)

• Thelongelevationsofthebuildingarenotorientedperpendicularto prevalent breezes, making cross ventilation difficult to achieve.

11



Pro:The building fenestration supports daylighting and natural ventilation.

• Largeandfrequentlyspacedwindowsprovideadequatedaylightsothatmostspacescanbedaylitonasunny day without relying on artificial lighting.

• Double-hungwindowsinclassroomscanpromotenaturalventilation.Theformerlibrarycanberestoredtoits original tall volume. Using the vents in the existing eyebrow dormers as air outlets would promote stack

ventilation airflow.

• Thesebenefitsareoffsetbytheundesirableorientationmentionedabove.

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 devel-opmentwillhaveasimilarlowembodiedenergy.EvenwithextensiveimprovementstotheexistingAAH,limitationsto 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 ho-listic 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 build-ing 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. 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: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.) •

Con:Extensiveinterventionisrequiredtoaccommodatenewprogramsandbringuptocode. •

Existingstructurerestrictsabilitytocreatepublicspacesandopenupentry. •

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. •

ElevationofexistingLibrarywingisseveralfeetabovegradewhichwouldrequireexcessiverampstomeet•ADA code.

Window spacing Sectional change Corridor condition

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.

13



• Windows are spaced 7’-9” on center; difficult for office layout – creating offices that are too narrow or very large.

7’- 9”

Support

Women’s Room

Men’s Room Support

Typ. Office

135

1

2

3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12

Seminar480

LanguageLab770

MediumClassroom

600

Stud.Proj.120

Middle Street

• Limited live loads

• Wide floor plate = 58’; limits efficient office planning

58’-0

”

Option 1a- 1st floor

Option 1a- 2nd floor

• Windows are spaced 7’-9” on center; difficult for office layout – creating offices that are too narrow or very large.

7’-9”

Med. Classroom

600

Additional Classroom

500ClassLab450

Lab Support

120Stor100

Stud.Proj.250

Multi-Pur.Classroom

500

Seminar480

Small Classroom

500

Support

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Typ. Office

135

InstructionalTechnologist

Typ. Office

135

Center forDemocracy

260

BlackistoneRoom1100

Women’s Room

Men’s Room

Seminar400

Middle Street

Exhibit display Exhi

bit d

isplay

• Additional space for small classroom

14



Option 1b- 1st floor

Option 1b- 2nd floor

Wom

en’s

Room

Men’

s Ro

omVideo

OrientationTheater

800

Visitor Center Office

150

VisitorLobby

600

Permanent ExhibitsGallery

500


2025


2025

Special ExhibitsGallery

1000

ExhibitPrep/

Storage250

Load/Rec’v100

•Floor to Clg. Height = 11’-0”not ideal for exhibits

Middle Street

• Limited Environmental Control

• Opportunity to open ends to take advantage of views

•Opportunity to open up double height space for galleries

Middle Street

Wom

en’s

Room

Men’

s Ro

om

Swing Space

15



Option 2 - 1st floor

Interior corridor in Library wing of AAHLibrary wing of AAH from Route 5

a) Blackistone Room and support space (Bathrooms, Catering Kitchen, Storage)

b) Larger Blackistone Room

c) Classrooms

•These support spaces currently not in program

•2 Medium classrooms and Multi-purpose classroom

•Enlarge Blackistone Room from 1100 nsf to 1835 nsf

16



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 pro-grams in order to meet the goals of the project.

17

anne arundel hall partial reuse report · anne arundel hall partial reuse report st. mary’s...

Documents