Drop Back in
for Another Visit
The 1983 opening of an underground visitor
center in Minneapolis represented a victory over an architectural
dilemma. Fort Snelling, the US government's regional administrative
center during the second quarter of the nineteenth century, was
rebuilt as a living history museum during the 1970s. The next step
was to build an orientation and interpretive center that would be
spacious enough to serve school groups as well as individual
visitors. Constrained by a variety of restrictions and objectives,
the Minnesota Historical Society commissioned a conceptual design
study for the project. The study group ultimately recommended that
the center should be an unobtrusive 'non-building.' Appealing
but unobtrusive, useful but unnoticeable--what challenging
instructions to hand an architect.
Expansive Intentions
The challenge was magnified by the scope of the
building's uses. Certainly, it had to serve the usual functions of a
visitor center, with a reception area and information desk, a book
store and gift shop, and an auditorium where groups could watch
films and live presentations. In addition, the Minnesota Historical Society, the
proposed building's owner, wanted to include some administrative
office space. Furthermore, the structure would also house an
archaeological laboratory where artifacts could be analyzed.
Considering these space requirements, the architect was faced with
the task of hiding a two-story building.
Insignificant Impacts
Hiding the building was, in fact, essential.
Visitors to the restored fort were supposed to experience the site
as it existed in 1827, so the view should not be cluttered with an
extra structure. The restored fort sat on a bluff overlooking the
confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers. The new visitor
center could not interrupt the scenic nature of the bluff, whether
viewed from the water, from the landward portion of the bluff, or
from the cliff on the opposite side of the river. This restriction
was motivated not only by aesthetics but also by state laws
controlling riverside development.
Minimizing the visual impact of the new building might have been
enough to prompt the architect to place the structure underground,
but another factor contributed significantly to that decision as
well. During the late 1970s, when the building was being planned,
energy costs had risen dramatically as a result of a 1973-74 embargo
in which major Arab nations refused to sell oil to the United
States. Although crude oil prices had leveled off by the late 1970s,
Americans were worried about the possibility of fossil fuel supplies
being restricted again in the future. Making new buildings as energy
efficient as possible made both economic and strategic sense,
particularly in a location where the normal daily high temperature
hovered around 25EF during winter
months. For this reason, in fact, several underground buildings were
constructed during the 1970s and early 1980s in Minnesota, including
a public library and two university buildings in Minneapolis and a
visitor center at another Minnesota Historical Society facility
northwest of the Twin Cities.
Imaginative Ideas
So, underground it would be. The Historic Fort Snelling
visitor center was recessed a story and a half into the ground, and
soil was mounded over it, creating a gentle slope atop the bluff.
Twenty years later, it still serves as a subtle portal to the
rebuilt fortress, with several unusual features continuing to make
the experience comfortable and enjoyable for visitors and
employees.
Because the prairie grass-covered building
cannot be seen from the adjacent parking lot, a tall, stone pillar
marks the walkway to its entrance. The psychological impact of
entering an underground building is lessened by having visitors walk
down a slightly sloping, paved path to the doorway rather than
climbing down stairs or descending in an elevator. On the way down
the path, they walk beside a stone wall that becomes taller as they
progress, rising to normal building height by the time they reach a
conventional glass door. Then they walk horizontally into the
building, just as they would enter a surface
structure.
Inside the building, a broad hallway serves as a
reception area where arriving groups can assemble and organize
themselves. Because this concourse can be kept at a temperature
between the outdoors and the indoor activity areas, it provides a
comfortable transition area for visitors. It can also conserve
energy by serving as a buffer zone between significantly different
exterior and interior temperatures. Along one side of this corridor
lie the building's public areas S the information desk, auditorium,
and store. Along the other side is a wall filled with windows
shielded by vertical blinds; this portion of the building houses
staff offices. Along one section of the concourse, sloped glass
panels near the floor allow visitors to watch activities in an
archaeological laboratory one story below; these windows also
provide light and a feeling of spaciousness to the underground
lab.
Compared to visitors who are in the building for
relatively short periods of time, workers in the two-story office
wing have a greater desire and need for rooms with a view. The upper
floor, one level below grade, wraps around three sides of an
open-air courtyard. The lower floor, a level below this recessed
courtyard, could simply have been decorated and illuminated with
artificial lights. A somewhat more pleasant effect would have been
achieved with a skylight admitting natural light into the space.
However, David Bennett, the visitor center's
architect, opted for a more creative measure, essentially making one
courtyard wall into a periscope. A hollow wall, several feet thick,
is defined by exterior and interior walls. The enclosed, empty space
functions as a dual-purpose chamber: fresh air is drawn in through
the chamber to circulate through the building, and angled mirrors in
the chamber transmit a view of the courtyard to the deeper rooms. At
the top, a downward- and outward-facing mirror runs the length of
the enclosure, reflecting an image of the courtyard toward the
bottom of the chamber. Another large mirror, facing inward and
upward, fills the bottom of the chamber, redirecting the courtyard
image horizontally through office windows. The lower mirror is tall
enough to extend above the top of the windows so that even a person
seated at a desk will not see the upper edge of the reflective
surface when looking through the window. This periscope device,
which Bennett called a "view plenum," effectively creates a virtual
courtyard in a narrow, empty column between subterranean offices and
surrounding soil.
Question for readers: Have you seen a similar
mirror system in any other building? If so, please use the "Contact
Us" link on the home page to tell us about it.
Thanks!
Unless otherwise attributed, all
SubsurfaceBuildings.com content is © Loretta Hall,
2000-2005.
|