Beltsville Conservation Center Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2013 http://archive.org/details/beltsvilleconserOOunit Beltsville Conservation Center Design Guidelines Contents The Groundwork for Action: Aspirations and Project History Site Considerations and Charrette Objectives The Broad Vision Additional Issues and Guidelines 6 10 14 Process, Elements of the Master Plan and the Design Team 16 Appendix 1: Summary of the Design Guidelines 20 Appendix 2: Charrette Team Biographies 2 1 Appendix 3: Charrette Agenda 24 U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Report of the Design Charrette Team September 23-24, 1993 Prepared By Design Arts Program National Endowment for the Arts December 1993 The Groundwork for Action: Aspirations and Project History The Beltsville Conservation Center (BCC) will he a showcase of conserva- tion practices and education. The project, located in Maryland on a 1 ,400-acre tract of rolling hills - a mix of farmland and forest only 1 5 miles northeast of the White House - is to be developed and managed by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), an agency within the Department of Agriculture. The SCS sees the effort as a clear ex- pression of its vision: "A productive nation in harmony with a quality envi- ronment." In this context, according to project leader and SCS Deputy Chief of Technology Robert Shaw, the BCC is "a unique opportunity to 'market' conservation and demonstrate an ecosystem-based approach where human needs - especially those related to farming, conservation systems and water management - are integrated within a more comprehensive under- standing of the other environmental needs and relationships." The BLAST Team Report The present strategy for the BCC evolved from a year-long SCS study initiated in October 1991. (The com- pleted study was dated October 1992 and was distributed as an in-house document entitled Beltsville Conservation Center - Report of the Beltsville Land and Site Team. A summary of the report, "Beltsville Conservation Center - Executive Summary," was published by the Government Printing Office in 1993.) The mandate to those involved with the analysis was "to develop a plan to more effectively use the land pres- ently occupied by the National Plant Materials Center (NPMC) in Beltsville, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, DC." After 1 1 months of intensive research, the Beltsville Land and Site Team (BLAST) made several findings. First, it concluded that the site was special, one of only a "few places so close to a large metropolitan area that afford rural scenery typical of a remote countryside." Second, it called atten- tion to the ideal location of the NPMC property - just outside the nation's capital and close to airport, highway, rail and subway transportation. In additional findings, it noted potential new SCS uses for the site as well as opportunities to build partnerships with agencies that had facilities nearby. Based on these facts, the BLAST team made six recommendations: 1 . Establish the Beltsville Conservation Center "corridor" to market conserva- tion; 2. Relocate the NPMC facilities and redirect its activities to complement the conservation corridor concept; 3. Establish facilities for education and marketing on the BCC site; 4- Relocate the Earth Team (SCS's volunteer network) and Conservation Education headquarters to the BCC site; 5. Actively explore opportunities with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to relocate or co-locate SCS personnel to Beltsville; and 6. Establish ongoing collaborative partnerships with neighboring federal agencies including NASA, the Agri- cultural Research Service (ARS), and the Fish and Wildlife Service (F&WS). It then went on to identify many of the specifics involved in implementing the recommendations, and outlined a five-year schedule and a modest $1.26 million budget to complete the project. Extensive appendices to the report analyzed the BCC's 1 ,400 acres with respect to criteria such as soil types, recreation development, wildlife habi- tat and suitability for building. Given a tour of the site and an exten- sive presentation on the aspirations for the BBC, SCS's director and other top managers gave their endorsement and full support to the undertaking. With that approval, the initial stages of the project have begun. An agreement has been worked out with the ARS to manage those parts of the 1,400 acre site that were not originally under SCS control. A design has been developed to renovate an existing NPMC struc- ture as a temporary visitor briefing center. Offices for the Earth Team are being moved to the Beltsville location and conservation systems have been constructed at the southern end of the site. • SPl" a The site was special - one of only a "few places so close to a large metropolitan area that afford rural scenery typical of a remote countryside." **W 2N :«\ -*w T . Subsistence settlements dating back 3,000 to 6,000 years ago show some dependency upon the site for production of food. Prior to the 17th century, the area was a quiet home to the Nanchotank tribe. In the 1930s, SCS acquired management responsibility for the site. This 1937 photograph shows workers removing pines stumps to make a clearing. The Charrette While these first steps got the BCC underway, a key element of Phase 1 implementation was to avoid a piece- meal approach by preparing a detailed conservation plan - including land- scaping and architectural proposals - that reflected all six BLAST team recommendations. The dilemma was that while the SCS project leaders had given much thought to the philosophy and individual facets of their conser- vation showcase, they were not ex- actly sure how these elements could be orchestrated into a single, powerful design. At this juncture, Thomas Grooms, manager of the Federal Design Im- provement Program in the Design Arts Program at the National Endow- ment for the Arts, in consultation with the BLAST team, suggested convening a "charrette" as a way to translate the concepts behind the BCC into a set of clear design priori- ties and guidelines. ("Charrette" comes from a French phrase that described the hectic rush of students at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts to com- plete their architectural drawings. Today, the term refers to an intense study of a particular design problem.) The outcome of this session would not be a final design. Rather, it would be a compelling design vision for the BCC, a valuable set of guidelines for whomever was chosen to develop the detailed master plan. Not long after the SCS agreed to use the charrette process, five nationally regarded experts were invited by the Design Arts Program of the National Endowment for the Arts to participate. Diana Balmori, landscape architect, urban designer and Yale University professor, chaired the team. Her associates were John Tillman Lyle, a Cal Polytechnic landscape professor, architect and planner; John Padalino, president of the Pocono Environmen- tal Education Center; Michael Hanke, an interpretive exhibition designer with DMCD in New York City; and James Wines, architect and principal of SITE in New York City and chair of Environmental Design at Parsons School of Design. The group gathered on September 23-24, 1993, and after a full agenda of presentations and site tours, they spent the rest of their time together discussing and evaluating a range of different design ideas. This document, prepared by rapporteur Thomas Walton, professor of Archi- tecture at The Catholic University of America, summarizes the BCC design guidelines that emerged from this meeting. Site Considerations and Charrette Objectives The wonder of the Beltsville Conser- vation Center site is that its rolling hills, farmland, lake and forests are so close to the dense urban development of Washington, DC, and the sprawl that characterizes the suburbs around the capital. Located in Maryland, northeast of the District of Columbia just beyond the beltway, the area seems, in many ways, untouched by this growth. It truly is, as those who have the good fortune to wander through its knolls, "an oasis of green." Because it is such a unique and special place, and because site issues generally have a significant impact on design, it is worthwhile including a few com- ments about the BCC landscape. There is no pretense of being compre- hensive. The facts that follow are mentioned simply because they formed the guidelines presented later in this report. Site Considerations Understanding the larger context of the BCC site is crucial to developing a valid design program for the center. In particular, one important point is to know that the 1 ,400 acres of the BCC are actually part of a much larger 30,000 acre U.S. government-owned green space. This vast tract extends from Severn to the north to Beltsville in the south and parallels the Balti- more/Washington transportation corridor. Control of the larger property is in the hands of various federal Location (BCC is shown by shaded area) agencies that either maintain the land in its natural state or have developed it with various low-density functions. In the exceptionally crowded New York-to- Washington segment of the United States, this amount of contigu- ous green space represents an extraor- dinary natural resource. A second important feature of the site is its location near the headwaters of the Anacostia River watershed. The Anacostia is a major waterway run- ning through the eastern sector of the District of Columbia. Now badly ToBWI Airport Virginia National Airport North polluted by runoff, Maryland's Mont- gomery and Prince Georges counties as well as the District of Columbia have agreed to improve the river's water quality by participating in a program that will gradually restore the watershed. In this context, the BCC cannot only serve to demonstrate certain principles related to conserva- tion and wetlands but also illustrate the broader concept of watersheds and ways to protect this kind of essential Related more specifically to the BCC's 1,400 acres, these items should be noted: I The BCC's immediate neighbors include the ARS and a Secret Service installation to the north, the ARS and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway to the west, NASA to the south, and the ARS to the east. To the northeast, the F&.WS has its extensive Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. I The BCC property itself is bisected by the federally-maintained Soil Conservation Service Road running north-south and the county-main- tained Beaverdam Road running Visitors should come away more knowledgeable about the meaning and importance of wetlands and with a better idea of how water moves across the landscape... east-west. Powder Mill Road runs along its northern border and provides vehicular access to the site from the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and Route 1. I The possibility of closing the south- ern end of Soil Conservation Service Road as a way of controlling traffic through the proposed expansion of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center is currently being evaluated. I Metro or subway access to the BCC is available from the Greenbelt stop, 4-5 miles to the southwest of the Center. I Certain aspects of the BCC site are unlikely to change. These include the present balance of forested versus open land, the path of Soil Conserva- tion Service Road and the fiber optics cable buried along its right-of-way, and the existence of a Department of Justice firing range and a National Arboretum tree stocking facility within the boundaries of the Center. I A radio and electronics installation adjacent to the central eastern perim- eter of the site may limit uses proposed for that part of the BCC. I At the intersection of Soil Conserva- tion Service Road and Beaverdam Road, there is a wooden farmhouse on the crest of the hill that probably merits preservation. I Other buildings on the site are al- ready slated to be torn down (the pig farm) or may be modified or removed to suit the goals of the design master plan. I All proposed BCC construction and landscaping will follow prevailing state and local building and environmental codes. Charrette Objectives Within these givens - realities that represented both opportunities and constraints - the SCS enumerated several objectives it expected the charrette team to incorporate into its suggestions. Reflecting the basic premise for the project, the agency wanted the BCC to become a national demonstration of conservation prac- tices, an outdoor classroom where individuals from the United States, and for that matter from around the world, could see and leam about the most effective and environmentally sound approaches to soil and water management. It wanted the design emphasis placed on landscape rather than on architecture. While there would be a small investment in new buildings, the idea was to show people what was involved in conservation instead of telling them about it in a visitor's center. And, as was the agency's tradition, it wanted all this done with relatively modest means - the BLAST team report outlined a five-year budget of just over $1.2 million. Finally, it stated its commit- ment to achieving these objectives in a way that made the entire undertak- ing a model of design excellence. In terms of detailed guidelines, the SCS asked the charrette team to address these questions: I What design strategies will most effectively deliver the message that the BCC is a unique national demon- stration area for ecologically-based management of natural resources? I How should pedestrian and vehicu- lar circulation to and within the BCC be handled? I How should the relationships and transitions among the BCC and neigh- boring facilities be treated? I What education and interpretive design approaches will work best at conveying the conservation and watershed restoration practices to be installed on the BCC? I How should buildings and other design elements related to the BCC be treated in terms of such criteria as scale, materials and siting? I What would be the recommended process for implementing the design of the BCC? '.'■•■ mm " ■ IBL « I ■ mm Sfc B$$al$l •#&< ^ 'jfw*s»r»i RBw The vitality and meaning of the various sites will be greatly enhanced if Earth Team volunteers lead tours... tailoring visits to the interests of 1 ■ J The Broad Vision Responding to the uniqueness of the program and its objectives as well as the beauty of the site, the charrette team divided its recommendations for the BCC into two types - those that shaped a broad vision for the BCC and those that addressed certain issues and details of the project. Eight guidelines fall into the first category. These were considered paramount because they establish the overall character of the BCC as a model for conservation and conservation education. The para- graphs that follow summarize these eight critical guidelines. The 1,400 acres of the Belts ville Conservation Center should be treated as the crown jewel of the much more extensive, government' owned 30,000 acre green space. This larger entity - the largest tract of relatively undeveloped public lands between Boston and Washington - is a valuable regional resource that could serve as a environmental transi- tion into the more intensely designed BCC. To this end, conservation prac- tices of a more modest nature could, over time, be implemented at strategic locations across the entire 30,000 From its gateway and throughout the exhibits, trails and facilities installed on the site, the BCC must visually distinguish itself as a truly unique and environmentally sensitive place. In a sense, it should be a visual expres- sion of a philosophy about living and working harmoniously with nature and the land. This special quality should be revealed in the entry experi- ence and way the larger landscape is treated and maintained - thoughtful, beautiful and healthy. It should be experienced in how people move through the site. The SCS should seriously consider having visitors change their mode of transportation at the edge of the site. Individuals might switch to non-polluting trams or bikes or explore the BCC on foot. Finally, this harmony should be seen in all the built elements of the site including the infrastructure. Paving, for example, might be kept to a minimum and be permeable, and the relationship be- tween water and the landscape might be featured in different ways through- out the Center. Understanding the concepts of an ecosystem and watershed should be significant elements of the BCC program. In addition to conveying information about an array of specific conservation practices, there is an opportunity for the Center to explore the larger ideas of ecosystem and watershed. In part- nership with other surrounding agen- cies, it should be possible to interpret certain aspects of the complex interre- lationships among human beings, animals, the land, air and water. For instance, visitors might learn how different combinations of soil types, water and land use support different mixes of plant and animal life. With respect to watersheds, they might come away more knowledgeable about the meaning and importance of wet- lands and with a better idea of how water moves across the landscape and from our built environments into aquifers, streams and river basins. The unifying themes of the BCC might focus on the interplay of soil and water. Conservation practices and exhibits must be designed and installed with the intention of making the BCC a readable landscape. Landforms, vegetation and water use should be shaped and organized to dramatize the conservation, ecosystem and watershed messages. Certain elements might need to be exagger- ated in terms of size or scale in order to read well. The goal should be to create a place that is both "hands-on" and "minds-on." The master plan should outline a variety of options for visiting the BCC in terms of time and how the site is explored. There might be one series of experiences for those touring via tram or bike and another layer of interpretive events for those that can more leisurely walk through designated areas and trails. In addi- tion, the spacing of practices needs to be laid out so the sequence is clear and lively. Tours should be neither too long nor too short, and the transition from one exhibit to the next should be designed to maintain visitor interest and avoid confusion. 10 ... . , 'Kgff 1*1 i® ^H ^^rWx^-wss- ^^1 ■"ft K2*ft SSV •PS BHH^HHHHHBHMHHHHBHBiHI rKKK^faK 1 ■i ■.?■ "' i* \>os Vfv