GLACIER NATIONAL PARK: DISCOVERY CENTER
AMANDA CONSTANTINE ADVISOR: JOANNE AITKEN
SITE
SAINT MARY LAKE
- St. Marys Lake North side of the South West portion had fire in 2015 - Overlooks Saint Mary Lake - 10 mile long lake - St. Mary Falls trail leads to Virgina Falls and Baring Falls as well - Family friendly hike
500’ 23-30 in. of precipitation
Cold, dry Artic air
100 in. of precipitation
23-30 in. of precipitation
Warm, wet Pacific air
Continental Divide
PROGRAM CLASSROOMS OUTDOOR CLASSROOM
RANGER PROGRAMS ENTRY
INFO OUTDOOR EXHIBIT
RESTROOMS EXHIBITS
FISHING GIFT SHOP PANORAMIC VIEWING AUDITORIUM
STAFF CABINS
5 ASPECTS WITH PROGRAM CONNECTIONS
BOAT LAUNCH
KEY:
FUN
BOAT TOURS
VISITOR CENTER PROGRAM FLEXIBILITY
RANGER PROGRAM AUXILIARY PROGRAM
INTERACTIVE EXHIBITS RANGER TOURS/TALKS TIMELINE EXHIBIT
COMMUNITY NATIVE AMERICAN SPEAKS
GATHERING SPACES
INFO DESK
CLASSES
REFLECTION LEARNING
PRECEDENTS DISCOVERY CENTER - DIGSAU
- Screening can close off visitors when building is closed while still keeping a continuous and non-evasive facade - Views and axis stem off from this main entry which can be used similar to visitor center in glacier’s views to the lake
RED ROCK CANYON VISITOR CENTER PARK
ARRIVAL SPACE EXHIBIT SPACE
- The pavilions and exhibits are hidden from plain view when first approaching the building and are only seen when one has already entered the building - Location of exhibit spaces allow for the most views out
HIGHWAY
ENTRY
CRAIG THOMAS DISCOVERY AND VISITOR CENTER
- Materials used that are local to the area - Sloped roofs allow for snow to not accumulate and to fit in with the surrounding mountain landscape
PROCESS
2 - MOUNTAINS
1 - VIEWS
4 - FRAME
3 - AXIS
PROCESS OPTION 1
PROS - Not affected by elements - Connection of all program - Easier construction CONS - Limiting - Site not connected to building
OPTION 2
PROS - Connected to site and path - Framing of views / entrance - Hierarchy of space CONS - Grouping of program - Elements will affect central outdoor area
DESIGN REVIEW
DESIGN REVIEW
ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1” = 100’
PLAN SCALE: 1” = 60’
DESIGN REVIEW
SECTION A
SECTION B
SCALE: 1” = 30’
TECHNICAL REVIEW
2
1
PLAN SCALE: 1/32” = 1’
TECHNICAL REVIEW
PLAN SCALE: 1/32” = 1’
TECHNICAL REVIEW
SECTION SCALE: 1/32” = 1’
ELEVATION SCALE: 1/32” = 1’
ELEVATION SCALE: 1/32” = 1’
FINAL REVIEW
BIRDSEYE VIEW
FINAL REVIEW 1
2
3 4
5
SITE PLAN SCALE: 1” = 100’
KEY: 1 - BUS STOP AND LOT 2 - DISCOVERY CENTER 3 - BOAT AND FISH SHOP 4 - PIER 5 - RANGER OFFICE/ RESIDENTIAL
FINAL REVIEW
SITE SECTION SCALE: 1” = 75’
SECTION SCALE: 3/64” = 1’
FINAL REVIEW KEY: 1 - ENTRY 2 - INFO DESK 3 - RANGER TALKS 4 - HABITAT EXHIBIT 5 - RESTROOMS 6 - JANITOR 7 - MECHANICAL 8 - AUDITORIUM STORAGE 9 - AUDITORIUM 10 - WATER/ROCK EXHIBIT 11 - JUNIOR RANGER TALK 12 - TIMELINE/TOPO EXHIBIT 13 - WATER EXHIBIT 14 - GIFT SHOP 15 - CLASSROOMS
15 15 15 13 14
11 12
1 2
6
5
10 3
7 8
4 9 PLAN SCALE: 1/32” = 1’-0”
FINAL REVIEW Some feedback received in regards to my structure was instead of the vertical tree nature of the columns, the columns could be angled to match the rest of the character of the structure. Other feedback was the ceiling structure really brought out the concept of my project. The plan conformed somewhat with the structure above, but there are a few areas in need of improvement to coincide with the ceiling folds. The stairs and seating stairs should be altered to align more with the angles and floor height changes.
REFLECTED CEILING PLAN SCALE: 1/32” = 1’-0”
FINAL REVIEW
NORTH WEST
ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/32” = 1’-0”
SOUTH EAST
Some feedback received was in regards to the orderly pattern of the curtain wall. Jurors believed that it would be better to show a more organic pattern to match the rest of my project. Another comment was to not have the wall as fully vertical.
SHEATHING FLASHING INSULATION SHEATHING CEDAR SHAKES AIR GAP WATER BARRIER INSULATION SHEATHING AIR GAP CEDAR SHAKES
3” 9”
COVE LIGHT
BEAM/FLOOR CONNECTION
GUTTER
SOLAR FILM TILE
FINAL REVIEW
DN
DN DN
DN DN
DN DN
WATER COLLECTION
NATURAL VENTILATION
CIRCULATION
DN
FINAL REVIEW
FINAL REVIEW