-足 -足 ~
--""""""-- 足
he true challenge of the Monona Terrace Community and Convention Center was incorporating all the required changes into the structure without changing Frank Lloyd Wright' s 1959 design.
T
to the change in the flood plain was in the steel trusses that supported these spaces and the roof. The most economical trusses were more than 10 feet deep. The trusses the design team had to use are less than 8' deep.
John Nolen Drive, the busy traffic artery that passes beneath Monona Terrace, is now six lanes wide, a major increase from its original span; flood plain regulations are more strict; regulations regarding environmental issues, i.e.
Reducing the truss depth made them heavier and more rigid. (The truss chords vary from W 14 x 120' s to W 14 x 233' s.) The rigid structure allow s dancing on the roof garden terrace without shaking the chandeliers in the ballroom below .
Monona Terrace:
BuiLt for Today building over the lake and landfill, are more conservative; building technology and codes are significantly different; and the use of the facility has changed from a Civic Auditorium to a Community and Convention Center. The one thing that remains unchanged is the final design for Mr. Wright's "Jewel on the Lake."
. The height challenge also led to another creative solution . Incorporating the natural elements of the site into the design and bringing those elements inside the building was an important tenant of Frank Lloyd Wright' s design philosophy called organic architecture. The ballroom ceiling is a series of suspended arches or scallops that reflect the project' s signature arches. The suspended arches also allow the ceiling to extend up between the trusses to increase the ceiling height in the ballroom. The proje,cr had many more challenges: building on piles 90 feet over the lake, accommodating the horizontal thrust of the ice on the piles, an acoustically sensitive lecture hall in a cylindrical space, enormou s cantilevers on the lake side that support heavy precast concrete arches yet remain thin and tapering in appearance, the curvilinear forms of the building that required a constant effort to squeeze square pegs (like concrete blocks, precast concrete panels, drywall, ductwork, air handlers and I ight fixtures) into round holes.
Wright finished his redesign in 1959, but the
In the 1950s, the lowest le vel of Monona Terrace was two feet above Lake Monona. Flood plain regulations have since been enacted to establish the lowest level of any building in Lake Monona's flood plain at 4'8" above the mean lake level. The project began by losing 2'8" in height.
cornerstone
reads ((1997."
TypicaiJy, the height of the building would be increased to compensate. The City of Madison, however, limited the height of the building to preserve views to and from the lake. This is typical of many of the challenges that were discovered and resolved during the three years of design and construction of Monona Terrace. The ballroom and exhibit hall both required clear spans with proportionally high ceiling s. The only place to make up the 2'-8" that was lost due
Each challenge had its own unique solution, and each so lution had to be weighed against the immovable goal of maintaining Mr. Wright' s design for the building envelope.
EDITOR: The author was the project manager of the Monona Terrace Community and Conven足 tion Center with PoUer Lawson. Fortunately for the 1998 AlA Wisconsin Convention Committee, he also is chairing the Logistics Subcommittee. The design leamfor {his project was the Monona Terrace Design Venture, ajoint partnership wilh Taliesin Architects, Porrer Lawson, Inc., and Arnold and 0 'Sheridan, Inc.
Wisconsin Architect January/ February 1998 Cover photo by Skat Weidemann Photography