For every mind, for every body

Over the past several decades, architects have developed a new level of interest in reusing historic buildings as part of contemporary urban life. This growing cultural interest has run concurrent to another urban phenomenon: diversification. While these two positive trajectories have happened simultaneously, their practical implications create a conflict because most historic buildings were not designed for diversity. This conflict is very prevalent in the Indianapolis Athenaeum (Figure 1), which is a late 19th-century wellness center designed for the local German-American population, with the mission of promoting a “sound mind in a sound body.” Like most social buildings of its time, it was designed for cultural seclusion and, inadvertently, for people without disabilities. In the decades since its completion, the Athenaeum has gradually become more inclusive and equitable due to changes in its programs, ownership, and context, and still promotes its original mission of wellness. However, because of its original design and its renovations, the building consists of many failures at inclusion and equity that prevent the building’s programs and architecture from reaching their full potential for the community. Building codes have addressed some of these failures, like requiring that at least one entrance be wheelchair accessible, but achieving inclusion and equity in a building like the Athenaeum requires far more than the codes prescribe.

Figure 1: Indeanapolice Athenaeum Existing North Facade

Figure 2: Thesis Concept

For that reason, this M.Arch thesis pursued a design scheme for expanding participation in the building’s programs, architecture, and history. These expansions, which consist of both interventions into the existing building as well as additions to it, engage in universal design, which is a set of strategies for creating a built environment that prioritizes the wellness of all users in the design process. The design result is the Athenaeum transformed into an inclusive center with an updated mission: wellness for every mind and for every body.

Preliminary research: Universal design and the Athenaeum This thesis involved two preliminary research areas: first, review of what inclusion in architecture looks like; and, second, study of the Athenaeum’s meaning in its community. For the first investigation, universal design was an instrumental ideology. Rather than using a tack-on approach like adding ramps to a back entrance, universal design expands the whole design process to consider every person, regardless of ability or disability, as a primary user of the built environment. The extent of this approach reaches far beyond making buildings wheelchair accessible. Universal design, as summarized by authors Steinfeld and Maisel, “enables and empowers a diverse population by improving human performance, health and wellness, and social participation” (Steinfeld, Edward, and Jordana Maisel, 2012, Universal Design: Creating Inclusive Environments, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, p. 32). Nowhere is such a concept more relevant than in a building like the Athenaeum, a wellness center.

Naturally, then, the second investigation asked how people use and appreciate the Athenaeum in its existing state as a wellness center, starting with a ten-question survey. Most instructive were the responses to the survey question asking what people think is most significant about the Athenaeum. Interestingly, these responses were divided into equal thirds: one third saying the programs, one third saying the architecture, and one third saying the history. For that reason, those three elements guided deeper investigations into the building’s past and present. What came up in all three elements, especially the history, is the legacy of promoting a “sound mind in a sound body.”

To then summarize the research question, this thesis asked how the most treasured elements of the Athenaeum—the programs, architecture, and history—can reach the goals of universal design by responding with architectural interventions to the architectural barriers (Figure 2). Or, in other words, how architecture can help transform the “sound mind in a sound body” mission to be for every mind, and for every body. Design process: Barriers & interventions With all this preliminary research in hand, it was time to start identifying the Athenaeum’s barriers to inclusion and develop architectural interventions in response. The first barrier is the difficulty of navigating and participating in the building, due to program overlaps that result in disruptive noises and counterintuitive circulation. This weakens participation for all building visitors, but especially for those with visual and cognitive disabilities who rely on intuitive routes for navigation. In response, a series of new corridors that connect the existing due to the way the elevations of the floors are offset from the street level. Figure 3 shows the existing first floor plan with programs in color and corridors in white. The existing corridors almost create a closed loop, so the new corridors could connect the two ends of this partial loop, running adjacent to a new elevator and stair core. The loop could improve navigational clarity and also create a buffer between the sights, sounds, and smells of the building’s programs. A similar loop could apply to all four levels of the building. The second barrier is the building’s inacessible and

Figure 3: First Floor Axonometric

Figure 4: Northwest Corner

uninviting street precence due to the way the elevations of the floors are offset from the street level. Here, a reconfiguration of the ground plane could eliminate the need for stairs by sloping the sidewalk downward until it reaches the building’s ground level a few feet below the street (Figure 4).

Centered on the main façade, a sunken glass vestibule could meet the base of the slope so that the sidewalk intersects with the ground level interior corridor loop.

The next barrier is the inequitable access to the different levels of the building due to the distance between the staircases and the one elevator. Because the stairs are in beautiful condition, instead of altering them or removing them, the corridor loops could redirect circulation to the new shared stair and elevator core. The new elevator and stair allow the existing stairs to remain as they are, but with reduced logistical pressure (Figure 5).

The last barrier is a more obscure one, which is that the amazing ornamentation on the building is only visually accessible, preventing people with visual impairments from participating in the building’s iconic architectural identity. Two solutions could respond: first, making new iterations of the existing geometry in developing the building additions; and, second, repurposing historic roof elements into sculptures by creating a rooftop conservatory and a rooftop terrace. Figure 6 shows the existing roof with its assorted gables, dormers, and other unique objects. The new version of the roof in Figure 6 shows some of the new iterations of the existing geometry, such as in how the glass conservatory could continue in the architectural dialogue of the existing gables – pointing upwards and outwards – but could be engaged with via kinetic and visual means, and thereby create a more inclusive architectural identity. New iterations of various forms and scales could manifest throughout the building, capturing the unique geometric character treasured by the Athenaeum’s community. Figure 7 also shows the new rooftop terrace and conservatory that could create access to the roof dormers and roof vents, which all become part of a multi-sensory rooftop garden.

Summary Overall, this research and design process suggested that, though challenging upfront, expanding the user group can, in the end, result in a built environment that is more usable and engaging than before. The Athenaeum was built for wellness, a “sound mind in a sound body,” and architectural interventions have the power to extend that mission to a diverse population, for every mind and for every body.

Figure 5: West Section

Figure 6: Northeast Aerial Figure 7: Southeast Aereal

Figure 8: South Facade

Kurt Green, Assoc. AIA Green is an architectural associate at studioAXIS in Indianapolis, Indiana. He is also a board member at Arts For Learning Indiana and a building committee member at the Indianapolis Athenaeum.