108 manitoga site master planning report

Manitoga / Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Report December 21 , 2002, Revised: February 3, 2003 Prepared for Manitogai Russel Wright Design Center In fulfillment of New York State Council of the Arts Grant # C-02466

consultants Carol Franklin and Colin Franklin Andropogon Associates IO Shurs Lane Philadelphia, PA 19127 (215) 248-2783 <franklincl @Andropogon.com>

Donald Watson, FAJA, NCARB EarthRise 54 Larkspur Dri ve Trumbull , CT 06611 (203) 459-0332 <lakesideDl @aol.com>

Manitoga I Russe! \~1Jight Design Center Site Master Planning RelJort REVISED: February 3, 2003

1 1.1 1.2 1.2.1 1.3 1.4 1.4.1 1.5 1.6 1.6.1 1.6.2 1.7 1.7.1 1.7.2 1.7.3 1.7.4 1.8 1.8.1 1.8.2 1.9 1.9.1 1.10 1.10.1 1.10.2 1.10.3 1.10.4 1.11 1.11.1 1.11.2 1.11.3 1.11.4

Table of Contents

page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Highlights of recommendations A defining vision: building upon what is truly unique about Manitoga Milestones in the planning process

1 2 3 4

SITE MASTER PLAN THE INSTITUTIONAL MODELS THREE SITE PLAN STUDY OPTIONS Comparison of three Interpretive center location DESIGN INSTITUTE MODEL AND 'FULL BUILD OUT" ROADS AND VEHICULAR SERVICE Existing entrance road Old Manitou Road PARKING AND DROP OFF SERVICE, SAFETY AND SECURITY Maintenance and service access Safety and security PATHS, TRAILS AND LANDSCAPE Existing Trailheads Accessible path and bridge to Russel Wright house/studio Pedestrian bridge Ravine path ACQUISITIONS and additional Site Master Plan alternatives Lots 1 and 2 acquisition options Red House Property acquisition options DESCRIPTION OF A COMPOSITE 'PREFERRED PLAN' Phasing NEW STRUCTURES Outdoor pavilion Interpretive center building Maintenance building Architectural program area summary SUSTAINABLE DESIGN OF SITE, LANDSCAPE AND BUILDINGS Site access, road design and construction Native landscape preservation and restoration Principles of Sustainable Site Design Sustainable design of the interpretive center

5 6 7 9 9 9

10 10 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 16 16 17 18 18 19 19 20 21 21 21 21 22

Mrulitoga / Russel Wlight Design Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: Febmury 3, 2003

Table of Contents (continued)

page

2 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2' 2.3.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9.1 2.9.2

INTERPRETIVE PLANNING OVERVIEW OF INTERPRETIVE PLANNING MANITOGA'S CURRENT INTERPRETIVE RESOURCES Curreut discussions of board and staff on visitor services THE INTERPRETIVE SCRIPT First level theme Subthemes and second level messages Third level INTERPRETIVE PLAN MATRIX INTERPRETIVE PLAN STORYBOARD WAY FINDING ON PATHS AND TRAILS Way finding Letter sizes recommended for pedestrian signs PRINCIPLES OF DISCOVERY LEARNING EVALUATION AND TESTING VISITOR STUDIES Current visitor demographics Documenting visitor demographics

28 30 35 36 37 37 38 39 39 39

3 3.1 3.2

BUSINESS PLANNING FRAMEWORK MAINTENANCE ENDOWMENT PARTNERSHIPS

43 45

4

REFERENCES

46

A B

APPENDICES Record of Discussion Manitoga Site Master Planning Workshop Site Master Plan Plates: Maps and Illustrations

24 25 26 27 27 28 28

Manitoga I Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: February 3, 2003

page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY /

The Site Master Plan was undertaken with support of a New York State Council of the Arts (NYSCA) Planning Studies Grant. The grant application describes the goal of the Site Master Plan: "With full ownership and control of Russel Wright's house, Manitoga needs to prepare for increased public access, Professional site planning is urgently needed to evaluate options for access and facilities use in order to make essential decisions and attract funding. " This report describes the Site Master Plan study, including narrative and maps. It provides a framework for Board discussion of options for site improvements, restoration, and possible acquisitions over the long term. The plan will enable Manitoga/Russel Wright Design Center to become accessible and successful as a public facility for visitors and programs, fulfilling its mission to preserve and advance the Russel Wright legacy.

A strategic plan of any organization that serves visitors must combine three elements: site master planning, interpretive planning and business planning. While this report is focused upon physical site planning, the related issues of interpretation and education and funding are included for coordination and reference.

Physical infrastructure and site planning options are presented in Part I Site Master Planning, describing site improvements that can be carried out along with on-going restoration of the Russel Wright historic house, studio, landscape and paths.

Part II Interpretive Planning discusses the visitor experience defined by elements of the Site Master Plan. Improvements in visitor services are being realized, most recently including a kiosk and welcoming sign, visitor surveys and brochures.

The business plan framework includes identification of costs and critical path of implementation, to be carried out alongside board and staff development, fund raising, marketing and outreach to members and constituents. Part III Business Planning provides cost estimates for the physical elements of the Site Master plan with a format to begin to document all associated costs and preparatory steps.

Site Master Planning issues The relevant issues of Site Master Planning were addressed by the Manitoga board and staff at a September 7,2002 Workshop, developed out of deliberations with an ad-hoc committee meeting (July 8, 2002. The agenda focused on the following key issues: Physical planning options, immediate to longer range steps.

Visitor programs and site capacity.

Sharing the mission and legacy of Manitoga.

Business/marketing plans and partnerships.

1.

2.

3.

4.

The discussions of these issues are summarized in Record of Discussion: Sept. 7, 2002 Site Master Planning Workshop (Appendix Al. Build upon the mission of Manitoga Create partnerships Design the visitors' experience Build our collections

Manitoga I Russel Wlight Design Center Site Mnster Planning Report

page 2

REVISED: Febmary 3. 2003

Highlights of recommendations The Site Master Plan builds upon progress in restoration of the Russel Wright house/studio and landscape and path improvements, currently being undertaken as funding and volunteer opportunities are developed.

A multi-phased site plan is proposed, to be coordinated with continuing restoration projects and with improvement of the visitor experience.

•

Multi-phased implementation permits Manitoga to use a combination offunding sources, including opportunities of grants, targeted fund-raising and improvements in financial returns from programs and events.

•

The site plan improvements increase Manitoga's future options. Phase I includes road/parking improvements and a proposed universally accessible path and pedestrian bridge to Dragon Rock. These improvements are needed for any future full public access to the site. Phase II provides for an interpretive center, with options as to size and uses subject to possible adjacent property acquisitions. Even if no additional property is acquired, siting the interpretive center provides for appropriate spaces for visitor services, offices, and programs.

•

The phased steps and options allow the definition of Manitoga's "best future" to be explored and investigated through continuing board discussion, program growth, funding, and marketing. The plan preserves a range of choices and alternatives, which are not necessarily exclusive of one another, but each of which suggesting choices as to focus, all presently conceived as long-range possibilities, including: collections-based museum, and visitor destination for house and landscape, and/or broad public educational programs, design studio and seminars, and/or "design institute," with more narrowly defined retreat functions and focus on publications and research.

The Site Master Plan (illustrated in maps and drawings in Appendix B) includes: Phase I Phase I includes elements that could be built separately or together: road/parking improvements; accessible (hardened) path(s) from parking to house with proposed footbridge; with options for ravine path; pavilion; improved visitor orientation and interpretive settings.

• Road/parking and accessible path make House/studio accessible. The pedestrian bridge is a significant design opportunity.

• An optional pavilion is small donor opportunity, for multiple uses: outdoor classroom, quiet overlook in inclement weather; summer camp use; special events.

• An optional ravine path provides "Iow-cost/high-return" for educational tours (schools, families) and is an opportunity to attract funding not normally given by road/parking improvements.

Phase II Phase II includes: extended road and parking; option of interpretive center (size and uses contingent on market analysis, property acquisitions, fund-raising,) • The interpretive center is located so that receptionist has nearly 3600 visible control of all driveway, site and path access points.

M,mitoga I Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: February 3, 2003

• •

page 3

Location of the interpretive center allows direct access from drop-off at both lower and upper levels, enabling distinctly separate zones and uses.

Uses to be programmed for the interpretive center are contingent upon property acquisitions. It is ideal location for visitor orientation whether or not other properties can be obtained in future.

Phase III The first two phases define what could be a ten-year plan of development, building upon the Russel Wright legacy of landscape, house and collections. The Site Master Plan also provides for a larger program mentioned in board discussions as a "design institute," which would become feasible if substantial funds are secured and if adjacent properties could be acquired.

The master planning study thus includes a full "build-out" option that might be possible with an enlarged site, to visualize possibilities whether or not they are ever realized.

A defining vision: building upon what is truly unique about Manitoga As the Site Master Plan and related program development proceeds, it is of course important to be guided an overriding vision. The board has properly grounded the planning upon the legacy of Russel Wright. Staff, board and volunteers are sensitive to and knowledgeable about the issues of historic preservation, restoration, and promulgation of that legacy. The following is an initial attempt to define how that unique legacy might be defined and improved, alongside its national peers.

Manitoga's uniqueness lies in the legacy of Russel Wright, a constructed landscape, house and collections, representing an historically important figure in 20th century design, demonstrating a philosophy of "design with nature," still vitally relevant to a world that needs to resolve its relationship with nature and role in environmental stewardship.

Manitoga's demonstration of ecological restoration is evident, first in the landscape that Russel Wright created, and second in the current and on-going restoration of house, studio and landscape. Dragon Rock, the Wright house/studio overlooking quarry pond is a memorable image and setting that conveys the unity of design with nature.

Russel Wright's approach to design as exploration and discovery epitomizes the creative spirit and inquiring mind. He applied this creativity to new materials and design assignments and became one of the founders of the modern industrial design in mid-20th century. Russel and Mary Wright created and promoted contemporary design as part of an "American lifestyle," defining a high standard of design accessible and affordable to the mass market.

Wright's statement that "Good design is for everyone" conveys this message, as important today as it was fifty years ago. The power of this history and impact on modern lifestyle is evident in the Wright collection, as displayed at the recent exhibition (Summer-Fall 2002) at Cooper-Hewitt National Design Musewn.

Similar "house-museums" or sites in the United States that define important contributions to 20th century design and thus are "must see" places to visit and experience firsthand include: • Various Frank Lloyd Wright homes/offices, e.g. Taliesin East, Spring Green, Wisconsin, Taliesin West, Scottsdale, Arizona, and Fallingwater, Bear Run, Pennsylvania.

• Wilson Art House Model Home in Austin, Texas.

• Richard Neutra House, Silver Lake, Los Angeles, California • Charles and Ray Eames home and studio, Los Angles, California.

Manitoga I Russel WJight Design Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: Februmy 3, 2003

page 4

Of these comparable venues, only the Frank Lloyd Wright houses are available to public tours (others are available only on private tours), Manitoga could be equal to or exceed these peers in conveying a truly memorable experience of design and place, All provide lessons about restoration of important monuments in 20th century architecture and design, An achievable vision for Manitoga is to become a world class, comprehensive house/museum/visi tor destination, equal to the best examples of 20th century American design, and unsurpassed in the story it conveys about the unity of design with nature, evident in landscape, house and collections, This vision may suggest ways to promote the Russel Wright legacy and Manitoga's mission: The house and studio restoration could be a model of restoration of similar early and mid_20th century structures-now at least fifty years old and requiring perhaps similar scale of restoration design and technology-documented and promulgated by special seminars and programs on site and by web site and publication or videos, Manitoga could also be offered for special retreats and could publish "white papers" related to its mission and themes,

Milestones in the planning process The Site Master Plan described in this report was developed with Manitoga board and staff, including site analysis visits, meetings and a planning workshop that included outside invited experts, organizational peers and community representatives, The following milestones place the current work in the context of a long-developing process of plans and actions to preserve the Manitoga property and legacy of Russel Wright.

Note: [* indicates that documentation is listed in ReferencesJ

Prior work (1982-1996) • 1982, Draft of Master Plan for "Manitoga, a Preserve of the Nature Conservancy," Andropogon Associates, Ltd, * • 1982, updated 1993, "Design and Management Guide for Manitoga," NEA Grant Report #11-4213-264, Carol Levy Franklin, Andropogon Associates, Ltd, * • 1985, "Historic Structures Report." Anthony Alofsin, * • 1996, "Condition Assessment and Preservation Master Plan," Beha Associates, * Recent developments (2000-current) • 2001. Manitoga purchased the life estate interest of Wright's daughter, Ann Wright, unifying the property and making it possible to realize the organization's potential as an important visitor destination and experience of house museum, landscape and collections, • 2oo1-continuing, Restoration projects of house, studio and landscape in process (new roofing, windows, mechanical systems,) Documentation related to the site master planning (February 2002-December 2002) • February, 2002, NYSCA Grant awarded to Manitoga • Feb, 8, 2002, Planning meeting with staff, board, and consultants, • July 6, 2002, Scope of Services Consulting Agreement signed with Andropogon Associates, Philadelphia, • July 18 and Oct. 15 Ad-Hoc Committee met to review progress of consultant work. * • July, 2002, Visitor survey initiated to document visitor response, * • Sept. 7, 2002 Site Master Planning Workshop with board, staff, and invited guests, * • Nov, 3 Status report to Board of Directors, • Dec, 21, 2002, Site Master Plan Report [this document],

M<Ulitoga I Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Report llEVISED: February 3, 2003

1 1.1

pageS

SITE MASTER PLAN THE INSTITUTIONAL MODELS Given Manitoga's formative stage of institutional development, the function of a Site Master Plan is to provide a framework for site restoration and improvement, necessary in developing the institutional program that preserves its legacy and mission and its potential to meet public interest and market demand, The primary objective of the Site Master Plan is to illustrate a plan to achieve public access to the Wright house/studio and historic landscape. A second objective is to illustrate choices of program, site and facility development, so that Manitoga board and staff have a pIau to provide a framework to develop high quality facilities and programs, sufficient to increase revenues through visits and tours, program participation, membership, gifts and events. These choices for program, site and facility development include the range from minimal approaches and "full build-out" options, that is, illustrating the range of site development following various institutional models.

A Site Master Plan should provide choices, consistent with a coherent development strategy.

This report discusses alternatives, to provide options, subject to Manitoga's evolution and programs that can be defined over time.

Various "future visions" of Mantitoga were defined in discussions with board, ranging from a single emphasis on the Wright house, studio and landscape, to an enlarged visitor offerings including interpretive trails and programs, and possibly to a "design institute," with meeting, retreat, and "think-tank" programs. The Site Master Plan discussion presented in the Report illustrates the site implications and capacity for each of these. These alternatives are not contradictory with respect to site development and can in fact be considered incrementally, subject to future opportunities of site acquisitions, marketing and funding.

Initial program of site improvements As an overall program for site improvements, the physical requirements are taken to include at the very least facilities appropriate to a "small house museum and visitor center," that is: site entry road, parking, accessible path to the house/studio, staff offices, site maintenance/storage, and interpretive center (with varying sizes and locations options, depending on program and site acquisition options).

House Museum/Visitor Center model This "minimal program" for site improvement builds upon the given unique assets of Manitoga, with its historic landscape, house/studio and proposes at the very least that the site be developed along the lines of a House MuseumlVisitor Center model, where success depends upon the quality of the visitor experience (and the number of visitors and interpretive program participants).

To assure success of a regional attraction and a national rank visitor experience, the goal is to provide visitor services (orientation, gift shop, bathrooms) with options to include exhibits, classroom and staff offices. The museum component of this model might be entirely or partially fulfilled by the house/studio furnishings and displays.

Manitoga I Russel Wlight Design Center Site Master Planning Report

page 6

REVISED: Februmy 3. 2003

Additionally, collections and/or modest exhibit/museum spaces could be included in an interpretive center gallery, subject to size and program. If the exhibit and/or collection program includes loaned or temporary exhibits, the interior environmental controls, loading, storage and security requirements of the exhibit gallery conld become substantial and suggest a larger building.

In keeping with the natural beauty of the historic site, the impact of any new buildings or landscape features should be minimal and entirely deferential to the setting. Therefore, the size of the interpretive center is assumed to be modest, in the range of 3,000 SF (interpretive only) to 5,000 SF (including galleries and classroom) with parking in the range of 4Q-50 cars.

A preliminary space program is defined in Section 1.10.2 below.

It is necessary to meet acceptable requirements for fire and safety access and for universal accessibility. It will be desirable to accommodate school busses. If the potential to attract "higher end" tour busses is considered desirable, the visitor accommodation has to meet a competitive standard for this market.

Design Center/Institute model Another "possible future," of interest to the board, is along the lines of a Design Institute model-not necessarily conflicting with a visitor center, but one that could complement the museum/visitor center model. The success of a design institute model depends upon the quality of staff, faculty, meeting rooms or studios and a retreat-like setting and facility, and on marketable products, such as publications, seminars and design programs. This is an ambitious option, but one that holds board interest, and could require a facility from 5,000 to 7,000 SF (appropriate size to be determined at some future point) and parking for 100 cars.

1.2

THREE SITE PLAN STUDY OPTIONS Three site plans were developed in the study and are described below in order to illustrate alternatives for site restoration, improvement and visitor program development. The schemes are compared in terms of three alternative locations for the interpretive center, which can vary in size depending on the location.

Illustrated as Plates 1, 2 and 3 (Plates are grouped together and appended to the report): Scheme #1: The interpretive center to the south of the existing parking lot.

The interpretive center to the north of the existing parking lot.

Scheme #2: Scheme #3: The interpretive center in the ravine below the visitor guide building.

Three alternatives to parking are also indicated which can be "switched," that is, the parking options are not directly dependent on the interpretive center location.

In all cases, it is assumed that the "Red House Lot" (Cochrum property) may not be acquirable, or at least, not within a time frame that would allow it to be included in first-phase site improvements. If it could be acquired, the site options illustrated in Schemes 1-3 would still be recommended, but with a smaller interpretive center, reduced in size because some program functions could be located in the Red House. Options created by acquisition of the Red House Lot and other adjacent lots are discussed in Section 1.8 below.

Two different access road realignments, which like the parking options can be adopted to any alternative, are discussed in below in Section 1.5.

M8Jlitoga / Russel Wright Design Center SUe Master Planning Report REVISED: February 3, 2003

page 7

While each option for location of the interpretive center appears to be feasible, several are more limiting on program, and difficult or costly to build, Advantages and disadvantages of each option are compared below.

1.2.1

Comparison of three interpretive center locations

Scheme #1: Roadway

realigned to provide 8% grade,

Parking

64 cars including 2 handicapped spaces, potential extra parking for another 54 cars, and a leg for bus tum around.

Accessible trail

from parking to Russel Wright house

Interpretive center

to the south of and below the existing parking lot.

Site Advantages

+ Roadway meets standard for gradient.

+ Parking is more than ample for projected uses. + Trail provides accessible access to the house (same for all schemes)

+ + + + +

Interpretive center Advantages is an "edge building," similar to Russel Wright house. is a "gateway" that frames the ravine. is able to achieve partial visual control of entire site (driveway and trailhead traffic). is immediately next to parking/drop-off and exist traffic from paths. has partial southern exposure and can be sun-tempered and lit by natural light (if designed with double-storied light shafts reaching both levels).

Disadvantages may require "steep slope" construction, e.g. foundation posts, with care required to avoid tree damage. has on-grade access to upper level only and requires elevator to lower level (if required) has limited adjacent land area for footprint (limited to approximately 5,000 SF building). septic system location is conjectural and may require uphill pumping,

Scheme #2: Roadway

realigned, but shorter than in Scheme #1, and provides 10% grade,

Parking

48 cars including 2 handicapped spaces, and loop for car/bus tum around.

Accessible trail

from parking to Russel Wright house.

Maniloga I Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: February 3, 2003

Interpretive center

page 8

to the north of existing parking lot.

Site Advantages

+ Roadway meets standard for gradient. + Parking is adequate for projected uses. + Trail provides accessible access to House (same for all schemes) + + + + + + +

Interpretive center Advantages has ideal visual control of entire site (driveway and trailhead traffic). is immediately next to parking/drop-off and exist traffic from paths. has upper and lower floors with direct on-grade access at both levels. has ample adjacent land area for large footprint option up to 7,000 SF. has excellent southem exposure for sun-tempering and natural light. septic system could be to the south, gravity fed. likely to be the least costly site of the three options to develop.

Disadvantages ledge blasting will be required for full lower story.

Scheme #3: Roadway

Same as Scheme #2: realigned and provides 10% grade,

Parking

55 cars including 2 handicapped spaces, and a loop for bus tum around.

Accessible trail

from parking to Russel Wright house

Interpretive center

to the south of and below the existing parking lot.

Site Advantages

+ Roadway meets standard for gradient. + Parking is adequate for projected uses. + Trail provides accessible access to house (same for all schemes) Interpretive center Advantages

+ is similar to Russel Wright's original conception and prior proposal for "Education Center." + can be fully integrated with ravine site and water courses (if permitted).

Disadvantages has very limited visual control of entire site (driveway and trailhead traffic). impacts environmental integrity of ravine water course and disregards national standard to create 100 ft. protected vegetated buffer zones along viable watercourses. intrudes upon very steep slope and ravine, possibly subject to regulatory approvals. requires "very steep slope" construction, e.g. poles, to avoid tree damage. septic system could be expensive, requiring substantial pumping and distance unless composting toilets were permitted. possibly the most costly site of the three options to develop.

Malliwga / Russel Wdght Design Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: February 3, 2003

1.3

page 9

DESIGN INSTITUTE MODEL AND 'FULL BUILD OUT" OF THE SITE As part of the site master plan, it is helpful to ask the question, "What is the full build-out" or site capacity for roads, parking and/or building?" whether or not such expansion is envisioned.

In the site master planning discussions with Manitoga's board, a long-term program option to create a Russell Wright Design Institute was put forward for consideration (to create a retreat or "study institute" requiring offices, assembly meetings and/or classroom/studios). The need and/or feasibility of such a program and building or amount of program space would require a market analysis that may be appropriate at any future point in time.

For purposes of the Site Master Planning study, the possibility of a substantial new building to serve as a Design Institute (in addition to an Interpretive center) is indicated.

• A substantial amount of parking is indicated in Scheme #1.

• One of two optional locations of a Design Institute is indicated at the south of Mary's Meadow, A footprint of 5,000 SF is indicated for scale purposes, Assuming a three storied structure (perhaps earth-sheltered to reduce height), this could accommodate a building up to 10,000 or even 15,000, • Although feasible, this is not a desirable location as it would intrude on a major feature of Russel Wright's garden design, In this sense, if Manitoga is constrained within its present boundaries, should it want or need to create a substantial Design Institute facility.

• An alternate location for program enlargement of this size and extent is created by property acquisition, A discussion of entry road and parking options follows in the Section below, Additional site development variations, based on possible acquisition of the Red House property and other adjacent properties, are discussed in Section 1.8.1.

1.4 1.4.1

ROADS AND VEIDCULAR SERVICE Existing entrance road The existing entrance road from Route 9D is inadequate to meet current and acceptable standards for an access road for a publicly accessible institution, due to: • The grades of the existing road are too steep, in places exceeding 19%, Although passable for limited use, this gradient is not acceptable in cases where alternatives exist.

It would normally not be accepted for institutional use and presents a serious liability for increased public access particularly in cold or wet weather.

• Road gradients and width is not acceptable for fire- and Emergency Medical Service (EMS) access, • Existing road has runoff and erosion problems that are correctable through regrading and appropriate diversion culverts.

• The existing road and parking does not provide for bus or service vehicle turn-around.

Two road alignment options are shown in study schemes for the portion of access road from the entry on Route 9D and the existing parking area.

• Improvement of this entry road is recommended whether or not additional property is acquired.

• Dependent upon the schedule of work, acquiring adjacent properties to the south could possibly influence the width of the road (that is, the access road shown could become a

Manitoga / Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Report

page 10

REVISED; February 3, 2003

one-way road only if an alternate means of accessing the site is created by property acquisition). This option is discussed in Section 1.8.1.

Starting from the same location-the existing curb cut on Route 90-two alternative road alignments are shown in Schemes #1 and 2, each with a double "S" curve and gentler grades, but of different length,location and gradients, • The existing junction from Route 90 is retained as the only acceptable entry option, given the current property boundary along Route 90 and site lines to and from the point of entry/egress.

• The new entrance road in both alternatives is designed to provide graceful curves that fit the contours of the land and open up dramatic vistas of the stream valley.

• The gradient, curvature, roadway width and turn-around options provide for the safe passage, parking, and unloading of cars, buses and service and emergency vehicles.

• Either new road will with proper grading drainage, and planting.

• The new road, in either configuration, creates an entrance that provides the visitor with special experience to bring them into a special site, in keeping with Wright's design approach.

• Either option may require construction within 100 feet of an intermittent streambed and might require a special permit.

• The most acceptable entry road would provide adequate turning radii for large vehicles and not exceed a gradient of 8%. This gradient is achieved in Scheme #1.

• The alternative (Scheme #2 road) shows a gradient of 10%, the maximum slope considered acceptable for such access. The construction of Scheme #2 road would involve less earth-moving and less site disturbance.

1.4.2

Old Manitou Road (discussion applicable to all schemes and acquisition alternatives) •

• • •

1.S

Old Manitou Road is unpaved and rated as acceptable for residential access only. This road and driveway do not meet current standards for public access to a non-residential use. Since there is no room to site either a new building or additional parking at the house site, this road can never be the main public access to Manitoga.

The existing driveway to the house/studio from Old Manitou Road is on the Red House Lot (deeded right-of-way to Manitoga property).

The existing driveway is acceptable only for normal deliveries and waste removal (residential-scale service).

The driveway must be maintained as the service drive and handicap drop-off for the Wright house.

PARKING AND DROP OFF Existing parking is improved and expanded, with three variations indicated via the three preliminary schemes. The current capacity of the parking lot is approximately 14 cars. There is little or no space for a bus turn-around.

Alternative parking arrangements are indicated in each of the schemes to show ways to meet the following general guidelines: • A parking capacity between 40 and 60 cars would be considered adequate for most program functions anticipated (trail use, program attendance, staff).

• The drop-off for an accessible public facility is a critical design determinant. It has to accommodate people with disabilities in all weather conditions. The drop-offfor a

Manitoga I Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: February 3. 2003

o

o

page 11

building entry or program must include a hardscape area maintained free of snow and ice if it is open for wintertime access.

Overflow parking for special events is considered a desirable option in order to accommodate special event functions, ideally in a grassy field that would not require special surfacing.

A possible site for a new museum or unanticipated program space is shown in all three options, in order to illustrate a "full build-out" of the site, even though such expansion is not considered necessary and thus is not anticipated.

Scheme #1 parking o

o

o

o

o

An 8-car parking area, including 2 handicapped spaces, is provided next to the existing visitor orientation kiosk.

The road is extended beyond the existing parking to provide for an additional 52 cars, which meets the requirements for a small interpretive center.

Bus/truck turn-around is provided as an leg extension of the entrance road to the west.

The possibility for further expansion of parking is shown, to accommodate an additional 44 cars, for a total of 104 cars. Although this enlarged parking capacity is not required for projected visitor center needs, it is shown for illustrative purposes as a way to double the parking capacity for "full-build-out" and site amenity.

The doubled parking capacity would be appropriate to accommodate special events and functions. A maintained lawn or field could provide for parking overflow (limited to times when the field is dry) or, if more reliable, year-round use is required, by grass pavers.

Scheme #2 parking o

o

o o

In alternative #2, the entry road is continued beyond the present parking area and is extended to the east and the upper level to create space for the interpreti ve center option located between the upper and lower road.

Parking for 10 cars is provided in the location of the existing lot, which has been reconfigured and improved. The upper parking lot accommodates 43 spaces, including two handicapped spaces, for a total of 53 spaces.

There is a drop-off lane at both lower and upper entrances.

Scheme #2 illustrates two possible alternatives for handling buses, a lay by off Route 9D at the entrance and a turn circle at the end of the upper parking lot. The lower Route 9D lay-by would require substantial reworking of the site along and beyond the west property line and is not convenient. It is shown only for illustrative purposes. Of all options shown in any of the schemes, the upper turn-around circle would be considered the most convenient or desirable.

Scheme #3 parking o

Parking for 9 cars including 2 handicapped spaces is provided in the location of the existing lot that has been reconfigured and improved. The upper parking is similar to alternative #2 and accommodates 43 cars.

Manitoga I Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: February 3. 2003

page 12

1.6

SERVICE, SAFETY AND SECURITY

1.6.1

Maintenance and service access The proposed improved road improvements provide service access to the property and to all proposed new facilities. Necessary in most instances of a public facility and specially to provide the option to mount temporary and/or loaned exhibits is a program option, delivery truck access and tum around should be provided. o Although not presently contemplated, vehicle storage and maintenance should be planned for, such as typically provided by a garage-type storage and maintenance shop. See Maintenance Building, Section 1.10.3.

1.6.2

Safety and security o Access to the site is presently limited to hours when staff is present on the site. Access to the site from Route 9D is controlled by an entry gate, which is closed and locked during unstaffed hours. Current hours of public access are from April to October, from Sam to Gpm. o Manitoga staff report that there have been no incidents of vandalism at the site in the past (in contrast to more remote sites experience the nuisance and increased liability and risk of uninvited access and use, property damage, pranks and collection box theft). o The property has nearly always had the advantage of a resident living on site, which increases safety and security of the property. The acquisition of the Red House Lot would provide an ideal location for a staff residence to continue this advantage. o At any future point that si te securi ty would be considered an issue, a reasonable approach is to install currently available video camera surveillance, so that activity throughout the site is monitored from a center control point. This would be an appropriate provision at the time the interpretive center is planned, especially if it is to include museum collections. o Fire and Emergency Medical Service (EMS) access is provided by the proposed road and tum-around improvements. o Fire engine access to the house/studio via Old Manitou Road does not meet current standard for a public facility. This will be a "fire and property safety" issue in seeking si te plan approval for the Site Master Plan. o A reasonable approach-subject to approval by local authorities-to improve fire and property safety may be to provide a pump and water reservoir so that the house/studio can be accessed across the proposed pedestrian bridge from the new entry drive and parking.

1.7

PATHS, TRAILS AND LANDSCAPE The paths and landscape of the Manitoga historic property established by Russel Wright are documented in several reports, the most thorough and recently updated being "Design and Management Guide for Manitoga," by Carol Levy Franklin (1982, 1993). The elements of the historic landscape and paths are shown on Plate 6. o Restoration of these paths and landscape is on going, based upon need and funds available. o Because it offers a prime opportunity for spring woodland garden tours, the lower section laurel trail is possibly a high priority for intensive renewal.

1.7.1

Existing Trailheads Access to trail heads is assumed to remain similar, if not identical, to the existing access from Mary's Meadow (remaining somewhat "hidden," as intended in the Russel Wright sense of

Manitoga I Russel Wright Design Center Site Mnster Planning Report REVISED: FeblUary 3. 2003

page 13

discovery) and from the north edge of the studio. Way finding and interpretive elements may be appropriate for these locations, as discussed in Section 2.6 below.

1.7.2

Accessible path and bridge from parking to Russel Wright house/studio All three study schemes presented show an accessible pedestrian path from the new parking and facilities to the house/studio and return.

The accessible path and bridge begins at both upper and lower levels of proposed parking areas and transverses the ravine that divides the site, connecting with the house/studio.

• This path is shown in all schemes as the one reasonable means to achieve pedestrian access to the house/studio.

• It enables an accessible gradient of 7-8% with railings and pedestrian bridge located above the existing dam, with the path then winding up the hill to the house.

• The path would allow a sequenced unveiling of the experience of the site, including the Dragon Rock viewpoint, crossing the bridge, meander through a restored vemal pond to the north of the Wright house and then the trellis way between house/studio.

• A minimum path width of 5 feet, with step-asides and seating, would provide for twoway traffic.

• In the event that the Red House Lot is successfully acquired, the accessible path can be extended, looped through the property, to provide an altemative one-way loop.

1.7.3

Pedestrian bridge.

A pedestrian bridge is shown as part of the accessible path. It is a very reasonable means to achieve a direct path that is accessible to the house. It also provides a reasonable means of EMS and fire-hose access to the house and studio.

• Design of the pedestrian bridge could and should be a distinctive site feature, designed in the Wright experimental tradition, but also reflecting the inspiration of "design with nature" in which his design philosophy is rooted.

• The pedestrian should become the transition to the world of Russel Wright, metaphorically and physically, bringing the visitor to the "front door" of the house/studio, and provide the beginning of the visit to Manitoga as historically defined in the same sequence that Wright greeted his visitors.

• As a relatively small but important feature of site improvements, the design commission could be subject to a design competition, to bring broad interest and talent to Manitoga's development.

1.7.4

Ravine path A ravine path is proposed as an option, in order to provide an interpretive and visitor feature.

• The potential role and advantages of the ravine path as a new visitor feature, to introduce and immediate experience of nature and to handle large groups (e.g. school groups) without impacting the historic paths is discussed in Section 2.5.

• The ravine path would be heightened and dramatized using the same approach to discovery and exploration of design and nature as Wright applied in creating the rest of the "Garden of Woodland Paths."

• Physical elements of the ravine path could include a covered pavilion (accessible, multiuse and located closer to the path entry and parking area) and sculpted landscape amphitheater.

• Initial steps would involve both removal of vegetation that is non-native or unhealthy, as well as the judicious addition of native vegetation where present trees have been lost through disease or accidents.

Manitoga I Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: February 3, 2003

1.8

page 14

ACQUISITIONS and additional site master plan alternatives.

As part of the planning study, the possible advantage of acquisition and purchase of additional land parcels adjacent to Manitoga would improve the final plan, Acquisition options discussed below are shown as options on a single drawing, Plate 4, in which the study area has been slightly enlarged to include several properties to the south of Manitoga along Route 9D. Lots 1 and 2 have potential for improving access andlor the program capacity at Manitoga if it were possible to acquire them. Two possible access routes are shown using land from both lots. These are labeled "Road Option 1 and 2."

• Lot 1- the Deli Lot on Route 9D. The lot has two currently empty buildings on it.

1.S.1

•

Lot 2- the larger Flag Lot immediately behind the Deli Lot and is undeveloped.

•

Lot 3- the Red House Lot (Cochrum property) indicated as Lot 3 on Plate 4 is just below the Wright house and uses the same driveway. It is essentially an in-holding and has an occupied house on it. The Red House Lot offers no access advantages for vehicles but may be useful for other reasons noted below.

Lots 1 and 2 acquisition options

Description Acquiring only one of these two lots without the other (Deli Lot or Flag Lot) would limit any benefits to be gained, To afford the full advantages discussed below, both lots would ideally be acquired and are therefore described together: Acquisition of the Deli Lot provides a means to improve access to the Manitoga property and to achieve Route 9D property with existing commercial zoning status, It is about an acre in extent and has two old commercial buildings located on it that front onto Route 9D with a small gravel-paved parking area in front.

The plan shows the location of a proposed access road that comes directly off Route 9D at right angles, climbs the hill towards the rear of the lot, then curves left along the rear boundary and joins the Manitoga property. Since the lot does not actually abut the Manitoga property, this road requires either a right of way, or additional purchase of some land, from the larger rear lot. The extent of this additional purchase is shown on the drawing with a diagonal hatch.

Since Route 9D is about 10 feet higher in elevation at the Deli Lot than at the existing entrance to Manitoga, the road has less elevation to climb and an easier path than at the existing Route 9D entrance. It is relatively easy to grade this alignment at 8% or less and to connect to the proposed layout shown in any of the Schemes 1 thru 3.

The Flag Lot has a narrow piece of land that connects to Route 9D. Road Option 2 would use this corridor to bring a road through to the rear of the Flag Lot where it would curve to the left and connect directly to the Manitoga property. However, since the corridor is very narrow (as shown on the tax map), additional land for a wider right-of-way and accommodation of the curve would have to be acquired from the Deli Lot. This additional land is shown with a horizontal hatch.

Manitoga! Russel Wlight Design Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: February 3, 2003

•

page 15

Evaluation of Lots 1 and 2 Acquisition options Bringing a road in to Manitoga through the Deli Lot area is possible. Only one simple curve is needed and grading to achieve the desirable maximum of an 8% slope should be relatively easy,

•

Both alignment options shown work well, Road Option 1 would require the purchase of the Deli property plus a piece of the Rear Flag Lot, or a right-of-way on the Flag Lot. Road Option 2 would require the purchase of the Flag Lot plus some land for an expanded right-ofway on the south edge of the Deli Lot

•

Both options require considerable additional road construction-about 6SO feet for Option 1 and 700 feet for Option 2-in addition to the land purchase, There could also be problems in construction with bedrock outcrops and wet areas,

•

Option 2 would leave the Deli Lot substantially intact for other development (provided the zoning allows for a lot of less than an acre), The considerably larger lot would obviously be more expensive, but at the same time, opens up the possibility of putting program elements on the additional land that would not impact the quality of the existing Manitoga property. (A SO-car parking lot area is shown for scale,) Conversely, Option 1 leaves the rear lot substantially intact, and because of its larger size it is unlikely that there would be any zoning issue in reducing its area with the right of way,

•

Using the Deli Lot would give good access and make a safe and attractive entrance to Manitoga, However, the Deli Lot alone offers little space for parking so that not much advantage is gained by putting any building program on it. However, Option 2 could accommodate both parking and a building comfortably on the rear lot. However, the building program function best suited for this location would be the "Russel Wright Design Institute" rather than the interpretive center, since the location is some distance from the house, Clearly, if it were financially possible, acquiring both lots would be the best option since there is plenty of land for access, parking and a building, plus having a visible presence on Route 9D,

•

Having access from either of the two options shown adds to the functionality of the plan but does not appear to offer and advantages that would change the preferred location of the interpretive center, shown in Schemes 1-3, Any plan that moved the interpretive center further south (away from the Wright house) would impose too great a walking distance between parking and house,

•

With a new access to the south, the current entrance road from Route 9D (and any proposed improvements as indicated in Schemes 1-3) could possibly be abandoned, However, the cost for the road improvements shown in Schemes 1-3 is modest. Further, the time and funding needed to make such additional property acquisition a reality could stall development plans,

•

Acquiring one or both Lots 1 and 2 would be a good long-term plan, allowing for visitor facility expansion and for the later building of a design institute, However, improvements to the existing entrance road would still be required since the current road is seriously substandard, One possibility (not shown) might be to have a one-way system using both entrances, Road width could be reduced to 15 feet, or less, and impact that wide roads have on the landscape would be minimized,

Manitoga / Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: FeblUary 3, 2003

page 16

Recommendation regarding acquisition of Deli and Flag Lots A reasonable strategy would be to implement the current preferred plan while proceeding to investigate whether the additional land can be secured for future development.

• While the possibility of using the lots to the south for access to Manitoga offers advantages, acquisition is not essential.

• It imposes additional land cost and a more extensive road development construction cost than in Schemes 1-3, (Construction cost is higher than improving the existing road because of the greater length of new roadbed is needed and some ledge may be present.)

1.8.2

Red House Property acquisitiou options Acquisition of this lot, labeled "Lot 3" and in private ownership (Cochrum), would reduce any possible conflicts between a private residential use and public use of Manitoga, • The lot is too small and isolated from the other available land by the stream valley/ravine to offer any additional parking or vehicle access, • The house could be used for administrative offices and a caretaker or staff residence, • Acquiring this lot might open up the possibility of an alternative accessible path, longer than that proposed above with Schemes 1-3, by developing a trail from the proposed new parking area to the Wright house.

• This trail would cross the small stream valley/ravine lower down from the dam and wind up the slope with successive hairpin loops, • Just as with the path proposal in Schemes 1-3, this path could offer an interesting experience for the visitor with many different views to the property, including a dramatic view to the "dragon rock" formation that gave its name to the house, Recommendation regarding Red House property • It is desirable for Manitoga to acquire the Red House Lot, so that the original Russel Wright property is returned to its original disposition, and the environmental integrity of the ravine can be developed in its entirety, • Immediate acquisition of the Red House Lot is not essential to a current plan, No advantage is gained in access, parking or program area, except the possibility of using the Red House for some offices or a residence for staff, • The accessible trail shown is not as direct as and does not have the improved fire safety advantage of the pedestrian bridge scheme indicated in Schemes 1-3, It does provide a "loop" however so that pedestrian access to and from the house would have a one-way option as well as the more direct two-way path, This also offers choices to reduce visitor crowding and impact and adding variety to the experience of the house visit.

1.9

DESCRIPTION OF A COMPOSITE 'PREFERRED PLAN' For purposes of focusing the site master planning discussion upon one plan, a "preferred plan" is proposed herewith, It offers the combined advantages of reasonable and lowest cost improvements, a phased approach that maintains maximum site development options, It also offers choices, so that it allows adjustment and could follow the variations depicted in other schemes, The preferred plan is indicated on Plate 5.

Execution of the plan depends on a sequence of site and program improvements, exploration of acquisitions, marketing of programs and funding. These considerations are discussed in Part 3 Business Planning.

ManitQga I Russel Wlight Design Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: FcbJUary 3. 2003

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

page 17

The plan is similar to Scheme tn with location of a two-level interpretive center in between upper and lower parking and roads.

The plan shows a two-part building separated by a courtyard with drop-off at both upper and lower levels.

A 12-car parking lot is provided on the lower level and 39 parking spaces including 2 handicapped spaces on the upper level for a combined total of 51 cars.

A ravine path boardwalk and small amphitheatre is shown overlooking the stream ravine and created waterfalls.

A pavilion is conceived as part of the ravine path, which could be built early on, to provide a ravine overlook and covered outdoor program and special event space.

A bus turn-around is provided as a Phase I provision as an extension of the main entrance road to the west, as in Scheme #1. For the longer tenn, a turn-around as indicated in Scheme tn, or connection to Lots 1 and 2, as discussed in Section 1.8 Acquisitions, would provide for bus/service truck turning.

Pedestrian connections between the new interpretive center and the present visitor guide building at the lower level are articulated by a change in paving.

Subject to design study, there is possibility of a second-story pedestrian bridge to a stair tower that takes the visitor to the path to the stream, creating a theatrical "gateway" to the site.

The accessible path and bridge begins at both upper and lower levels of proposed parking areas and traverses the site, connecting both the Wright house and the lower pond. The circuit around the quarry pond is also shown with the new accessible path to the house seen as a part of Wright's larger path loop system. A possible road connection to the south is shown, should the adjacent Lots 1 and 2 be acquired.

The Pavilion and Ravine path with the amphitheatre would be heightened and dramatized using the same design philosophy, approach and methods as Wright applied in creating the rest of the "Garden of Woodland Paths." This would involve both removal of vegetation that is non-native or unhealthy, as well as the judicious addition of native vegetation where present trees have been lost through disease or accidents.

1.9.1

o o o o

o o

1.1

1.2 1.3 1.4

Phasing The preferred plan could be conceivably phased as follows, shown below as a lO-year plan, in approximate order of sequence, showing options). The steps are "cumulative," that is they build upon one another, rather than competing with, negating or replacing prior steps.

Immediate: two-years (2003-2004) Continue restoration of house, studio and paths.

Rejuvenate Laurel Path planting for springtime tours (optional).

Plan to acquire Red House property (at any time but related to Phase II needs).

Consider acquisition of Deli Lot (at any time, but somewhat related to Phase I driveway width).

Continue improvement of visitor experience, interpretation, programs, marketing.

Undertake fund-raising and approvals for Phase I of Site Master Plan (2002-2005).

Phase I: Improve public access to house, studio and paths: two-years+ (2005-2007) Realign entry driveway and improved lower level parking.

Install accessible path from parking to the Wright house/studio, including bridge.

Build paVilion near kiosk (optional) Create a ravine path with the theme: "design with nature." (optional)

Manitoga I HusseI WJight Design Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: Februmy 3,2003

•

page 18

Undertake marketing study, fund-raising, design, approvals for Phase 2 (2006-2009) and update/revise Site Master Plan.

Phase II: Extend parking, road, service and build interpretive center (2008-2012) Extend driveway, parking and turn-around at upper level.

Build site maintenance building (assume approximate dimensions as 26 x 30 feet) with its location dependent upon acquisition (can be built at any time, depending on extend of internal road) Build interpretive center, with size dependent upon market analysis, funding and status of acquisitions, Continue marketing study, fund-raising, design, approvals for program and institutional development

2.1 2,2

2.3 •

Phase III: Long-range option (2012 and beyond, subject to acquisitions, market studies, program opportunities, funding and institutional growth) Option to extend program and institutional role to include Design Institute model.

3.1

• • •

• • •

1.10

Advantages of the above phased Site Master Plan include: It has numerous parts and elements, allowing phased implementation, Initial elements are not costly, permitting low cost-high yield improvements, Optional elements of Phase I, including accessible path, bridge, pavilion and ravine path are relatively modest in cost, yet attractive in demonstrating positive development and improving visitor options.

Initial steps required to make the site publicly accessible will not limit future options, ·Phase I steps can be undertaken without additional property acquisitions, and conversely, Acquisitions may occur at any future time, Timing of acquisitions will not adversely deter from any initial site improvement investments.

NEW STRUCTURES This section describes options for facilities to accommodate visitor orientation, staff offices, storage and site maintenance. How these facilities might fulfill visitor orientation and programming is discussed in Part 2 Interpretive Planning.

1.10.1 Outdoor pavilion • In Phase I, the only new structure proposed is an outdoor classroom/special event pavilion.

• This pavilion is ideally located as part of the arrival and orientation sequence, as a cul-de-sac, offering an overlook onto the ravine, • It could be designed as an orientation/gathering space, as well as a covered area for outdoor program groups. It might also provide an "event" pavilion (subject to development of wedding party rentals, birthday parties, summer camp use, etc.)

• The size of the pavilion would be sufficient to accommodate 30, with flexible seating. Builtin or nearby storage should include movable chairs and possible educational media, spotting glass, hands-on nature artifacts, etc.

• Depending on its location, this paVilion could be built at any time, subject to fund-raising and anticipated Phase I construction sequencing.

Manitoga I Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: FebJUmy 3, 2003

page 19

1.10.2 Interpretive center building In Phase II, an interpretive center is envisioned, located near the parking. The Site Master Plan provides for a building that could be as small as 1,500 SF and as large as 7,000 SF, subject to needs and opportunities to be determined in future.

• •

• • •

• •

•

•

The interpretive center is located to serve as both an entry and an exit gateway for all visitors to the site (a requirement of a successful interpretive program).

The reception desk is located to have visual control of the driveway and all pathway "trailheads." This requirement too is a necessary and "determining" criterion of any visitor center location.

The interpretive center, in any configuration, would provide visitor orientation, bathrooms, and a gift shop (minimum configuration and uses).

Additional functions of the interpretive center would be determined, subject to the prospect for timely acquisition of the Red House Lot. If the Red House Lot is not available for use, the interpretive center would also house staff offices, and educational resources (library, research archive room), activity spaces (such as classrooms and project rooms) and storage.

The Interpretive center in its "largest configuration" could house a museum for some display of Manitoga's Russel Wright collection.

A tentative space program (in the range of 5,000 SF) is indicated on the attached page, using "modest to average" space sizes for an interpretive center. The museum function could reasonably add an additional 2,000 SF requirement, including archival storage and artifact handling.

The need and opportunity for the Interpretive center would be subject to further confirmation of Manitoga's success in developing the site for visitors and marketing studies, to determine various uses for educational programs andlor museum.

The Site Master Plan indicates potential for a building of two stories (thus can be accessed directly from both upper and lower levels) and in two parts (that is, divided by an outdoor or indoor atrium space). This creates up to four different and distinct zones, for differentiation of uses (e.g. private offices, educational program, gallery, storage). Such zoning is required in visitor venues that accommodate different types of visitors and functions.

Architectural program area summary A summary of a DRAFT Architectural Program is presented in the following Section 1.10.4 for reference. It represents space standards of a small visitor center, but adequate for a range of different purposes. The location nominated for the center permits a larger footprint and full use of two levels.

1.10.3 Maintenance building A maintenance building for storage of landscape equipment, and a maintenance shop, (sized for contingency for a future vehicle) is recommended as part, which could be located near the Phase II turn-around to be placed a location hidden from obvious view within the bordering treescape.

•

In the event of acquisition of Lots 2 and 3, better options would be on the newly acquired parcels.

•

Manitoga does not foresee the need for four-wheel track vehicle for trail maintenance, preferring pedestrian access for trail maintenance (with a motorized wheel-barrow).

page 20

Manitoga I Russel Wright Design Center SUe Master Planning Report REVISED: February 3. 2()()3

1.10.4 Architectural program area summary NOTE

The purpose of this page is to estimate the "size" the proposed Interpretive center, to permit various uses appropriate to Manltoga's mission. The program areas listed below are typical of small visitor centers with anclliary educational and exhibit functions. Space sizes are modest to ample, but subject to verification and modification based on future conditions.

ZONE I:

VISITING PUBLIC ACCESS

SF area

sub SF area

10x12 14x20 8x12 2x8

120 280 96 16

512 SF

05 Reception desk (two positions) 06 Entry Exhibit Hall/Gift Shop 07 Orientation theatre/alcove

8xl0 16x26 12x16

80 416 192

688 SF

08 09 10 11

24x36 16x12 10x8

864 192 80

1,136 SF

wxl 01 02 03 04

ZONE i:

Entry Airlock Public bathrooms Coat Rm/storage Telephone alcove

Multi-purpose room (dividable) Project Room (special uses) Kitchenette

Outdoor sun patio/terrace

*

CONTROLLED ACCESS: INVITED PUBLIC & STAFF USE 12 Library/Educators Resource Rm. 12x18 13 Classroom/Board/Conference 16x24 14 Research Archive/flies storage 12x14 1S Workroom/copy/mailing 12x14 16 Staff Respite/Restrooms/closet 12x14

216 384 168 168 168

1,104 SF

756 SF

ZONE 3: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

PRIVATE ACCESS - STAFF Executive Director Staff 02 Staff 03 Staff 04 Staff 05 Locked file room Interns and volunteers work stations

14x12 1Oxl 0 10xl0 8x12 8x12 8x12 5x20

168 100 100 96 96 96 100

ZONE IV: 25 26 27

STORAGE & SUPPORT Storage & Receiving/Shop Archives and collections storage Mechanical/Electrical

10x12 16x20 12xl0

120 320

*

*

440 SF

not Included In square foot calculation

--------------------

----------4,636 SF

Subtotal all above................................................................................

Contingency/Circulation @ 10% TOTAL

464 5,100 SF

5,100

Manitoga I Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: February 3. 2003

page 21

1.11 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN OF SITE, LANDSCAPE AND BUILDINGS Appropriate to the Russel Wright tradition of "design with nature," the landscape and structures of Manitoga should represent state-of-art environmentally responsible design. This assures an enduring and affordable structure in terms of reduced annual energy cost, and promotes the values of environmentally inspired design that is a distinguishing theme of Manitoga.

Design principles that apply to the entire Site Master Plan developed by Carol Franklin for the September 7, 2002 workshop are included in the Appendix, and can be considered primary in developing landscape and facilities in the spirit of Russel Wright.

This section summarizes strategies and criteria of design of landscape and buildings within this tradition, now widely promoted as "sustainable design."

1.11.1 Site access, road design and construction Considerations for enhaijcing the experience of site access include: â&#x20AC;˘ Select routes that minimize environmental impacts and that allow control of site development. â&#x20AC;˘ Provide anticipation and drama by framing views or directing attention to landscape features along the access route and to provide a sense of arrival at the destination.

A curvilinear alignment can be designed to flow with the topography while adding visual interest. Crossing unstable slopes should be avoided. The road should have low design speeds (with more and tighter curves) and a narrower width to minimize cut-and-full disturbance.

Unpaved surfaces are appropriate in areas of stable soils, lower slopes, and low traffic loads, but they require more maintenance. Permeable paved surfaces allow limited percolation of precipitation while providing better wear than unpaved surfaces. Permeable parking surfaces provide a means of recharging the local aquifer, rather than creating accelerated storm runoff. Impermeable paved surfaces are needed for roads with the highest load and traffic requirements. Where possible, recycled materials should be used in the construction of the surfacing.

1.11.2 Native landscape preservation and restoration Preservation of the natural landscape is of great importance during construction. Preservation entails carefully defining the construction zone. Construction traffic can compress soils, making those areas incapable of absorbing water and holding oxygen necessary to support plant life in future.

Native planting patterns should be restored. Native plants disturbed by the construction should be saved, heeling them first in a temporary nursery. The site should be replanted with native materials in a mix consistent with that found in a natural ecosystem. Native materials should be used compositionally to achieve drama and visual interest for human benefit.

1.11.3 Principles of Sustainable Site Design The "Valdez Principles for Site Design," deVeloped by Andropogon Associates, provide design and policy guidelines in site design for U.S. Park Service. They are applicable to any site development. â&#x20AC;˘ Recognize the uniqueness o/a site in terms o/its ecological context. No site can be understood and evaluated without looking outward to the site context.

Manitoga I Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: February 3, 2003

•

• •

•

•

page 22

Treat landscapes as interdependent and interconnected. Create continuous environmental systems by reconnecting fragmented landscapes and establishing networks with other natural systems both within a site and beyond its boundaries.

Integrate the native landscape with development. Even the most developed landscapes are not self-contained and should be redesigned to support some component of the natural landscape to provide critical connections to adjacent habitats.

Promote of biodiversity. The environment is experiencing extinction of both plant and animal species. Development itself affords the opportunity to emphasize the establishment of biodiversity on a site. Site design must protect local plan and animal communities, and new landscape plantings must deliberately reestablish diverse natural habitats in organic patterns that reflect the processes of the site.

Reuse already disturbed areas. Despite the declining availability of relatively unspoiled land and the wasteful way sites are conventionally developed, existing built areas are being abandoned and new development located on remaining rural and natural areas. This cycle must be reversed. Previously disturbed areas must be rehabilitated and restored to their natural integrity, especially urban landscapes.

Make a habit of restoration. Where the landscape fabric is damaged, it must be repaired andlor restored. Every development project should have a restoration component.

Effective restoration requires recognition of the interdependence of all site factors and must include repair of all site systems-soil, water, vegetation, and wildlife.

1.11.4 Sustainable design of the Interpretive center (and related structures) •

o

o

•

•

•

Coordinate with interpretation. Make green design part of the interpretive experience.

Initial phase and longer-range program elements to coordinate with and fulfill the evolving interpretive program messages, themes and educational programs, providing mUltiple use, flexibility and non-disrupti ve growth.

Create high quality working environments. Center offices to provide a demonstrably productive, comfortable and healthy working environment for existing and projected staff and visiting public.

Provide natural lighting and resource efficient electric lighting. The center to be lit by natural lighting to the extent possible, to provide ambient lighting in all occupied areas. Task lighting to be energy efficient, with no glare and adjustable fixtures. Occupant sensors to be used for occasional use areas, including bathrooms. Provision should be made for photoelectric supply andlor fuel-cell technology. Site lighting should be shielded to prevent night sky light pollution.

Provide passive and resource efficient heating and cooling. Bioclimatic design principles should be evident in the design to provide passive heating and cooling, including high insulation envelope, high thermal mass structure, sun-tempered spaces, sun-shading and natural ventilation to demonstrate reduced reliance upon pollution-producing fuels.

Mechanical assist strategies may include radiant floor heating and heat recovery (underheated periods) and nighttime venting and cooling (over-heated periods). Consideration should be made for ground-source heat pump or fuel cell technology.

Conserve water. Design to include roof water collection (for plant watering) and waterconserving fixtures. A gray water recycling system may be considered to recover water from sinks and the kitchenette dish-washer (for plant watering).

Adopt environmentally responsible specifications. Environmentally benign and healthy indoor furnishings and material finishes to be selected for high indoor air quality.

Construction materials to be specified to exemplify best-practice use of recycled-content and low-impact materials and systems. Contractor to provide construction site recycling plan to minimize and reuse construction waste.

Manitoga I Russel Wright Design ('.-enter Site Master Planning Report HEV!SED, February 3. 2003

(a)

(b) (c) (d) (e)

(f)

(g) (h) (i)

page 23

Criteria for environmental materials specifications Environmentally responsible specifications, also referred to as "Green Building" specifications, are recommended construction practices and/or products that achieve one or more of the following: Material has low or no out gassing or emission of gases, such as Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), that are either a human health concern or are a risk to deterioration of archive materials. Specifying the recommended material aids in improving indoor air quality standards in the completed construction. [Note: products exposed to outdoor air are included because outdoor emissions fall under the Clean Air Act standard for smog control).

Material has high-recycled content in its manufacture, either at the producing plant or at the construction site, thus reducing manufacturing and/or construction waste.

Material and/or product is longer lasting, requiring less replacement over its life cycle.

Material and/or pr09uct is produced by an environmentally responsible company, including a manufacturer/supplier plan to recycle the product when it requires replacement.

Wood supplier uses forestry practice that is well managed for ecological, social and economic goals, and its entire production and processing ("chain of custody') is certified by recognized authorities (recommendation applies to all wood products).

Material manufacture uses environmentally benign processes and products that have less contribution to global ozone depletion 01' other negative environmental impacts (such as air, ground and water pollution) than do the commonly used materials.

Material and/or product results in energy savings, thus reducing energy cost and its indirect environmental impacts (pollution).

Material and/or product results in water savings, thus reducing water supply costs and waste stream volume and indirect environmental impacts (pollution).

Material and/or product is available from local sources, thus reducing transportation costs and its indirect environmental impacts (pollution).

Manitoga J Russel Wlight Design Center Site Master Plalilling Report IillVISED: Febl1lmy 3, 2003

2

page 24

INTERPRETIVE PLANNING Interpretive planning involves comprehensive and coordinated design of key elements and locations for inspirational and informational media to orient and guide visitor experience and to establish the educational and transforming experiences inherent in the natural beauty and design of site and visitor facilities.

In interpretive planning, the visitor's experience is conceived as a choreography or sequence of the visit, defined by views, landscape settings and other elements in the Site Master Plan.

This discussion includes: Overview of interpretive planning Current resources related to interpretation and site master planning at Manitoga.

The interpretive script: the story of Manitoga presented to visitors.

The interpretive plan matrix: coordinating themes, content, and interpretive elements.

The interpretive storyboard: elements of interpretive planning and design.

Way finding on paths and trails open to public access.

Principles of Discovery Learning for informal educational settings.

Eval uation and testing of interpreti ve design.

Visitor studies: establishing visitor demographics.

2.1

OVERVIEW OF INTERPRETIVE PLANNING Interpretive planning creates a framework for signs, exhibits and related learning opportunities presented as part of a visitor's experience of a place. The interpretive approach to public communication at visitor venues can be traced to the early 20th century work of Enos Mills (1880-1922), a naturalist and author who contributed to the National Park Service Act of 1916 and established Rocky Mountain National Park, and of Freeman Tilden (18831980), a nature writer and consultant to the U.S. Park Service. Tilden (1957) defines interpretation as .... "an educational activity, which aims to reveal meanings and relationships through the use of original objects, by firsthand experience, and by illustrative media, rather than simply to communicate factual information. " â&#x20AC;˘

An interpretive planning framework is defined by an overriding theme, comprised of a set of easily communicated messages and program elements that may convey various subthemes of the educational and recreational experience.

â&#x20AC;˘

Visitor orientation and experiences are essentially self-directed and self-motivated. Many if not most visits to public places for leisure and informal education are primarily for recreation, with education being secondary. Interpretive planning therefore utilizes the principles of discovery learning, recognizing the innate curiosity and also the great variety of learning styles of individuals of all ages, interests and abilities.

â&#x20AC;˘

An interpretive plan is constantly evaluated by monitoring the visitor experience and requires careful testing and feedback, especially when the purpose of interpretive design is to achieve stated objectives based upon visitor expectations and capacities.

Manitoga / Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Report

page 25

REVISED: February 3, 2003

•

The importance of universal design. Universal design is an approach to designing interpretive programs and facilities to be fully accessible and enjoyable by people of all ages and abilities.

Terms frequently used in interpretive planning An interpretive plan consists of: • Overall theme based on the vision and goals of public outreach.

• Key messages, sub themes of the interpretive/educational curriculum.

• Elements or media for communicating program content (publications, signs, exhibits, landscape, buildings, trails) • Outcomes to be achieved through the interpretive and educational program.

Overall theme. Usually stated in a succinct and memorable phrase, the theme encapsulates and communicates the vision of the interpretive program, derived from the organizational mission. The mission and the theme help to convey core values, goals and aspirations of the organization in a compelling and memorable way.

Subthemes and key messages. The key subthemes-often definable as messages and/or topic content of the interpretive (educational) programs-provide focus and coherence to all communications.

Iuterpretive elements are the physical objects are the media and materials by which the interpretation is conveyed. They typically may iuclude a web page about the site, brochures, signs, maps and walk books, exhibits and the landscape and architectural settings that reinforce the interpretive messages and values. These may be redundant and "multi-leveled," that is, presented in different formats to respond to the diversity of learning styles of people of all ages and abilities.

Outcomes define the intended or actual results in terms of the interpretive plan elements, obtained from an unbiased process of evaluation. These specific outcomes (such as the intention to convey a particular educational topic awareness) should build to a larger overall outcome.

Guideline criteria for interpretive planning and design.

I A sense of anticipation is created and reinforced by logo, entry sequence, and interpretive design.

2 Way finding and orientation is easily seen, understood and inviting.

3 Entry is an event and creates a highlight first impression.

4 There is a real and direct experience early on in the visit.

5 There is a coherent set of choices, variety of experiences and unforgettable highlights that engage and reinforce the interpretive theme and messages.

6 There are timely breaks and respites in the experience.

7 There is at least one summative and memorable experience at the point of departure.

MANITOGA'S CURRENT INTERPRETIVE RESOURCES The following status of interpretive resources provides the context for interpretive planning at Manatoga.

2.2

•

Manitoga has developed material that is inspirational and informative about what a visitor may experience, including:

M,mitoga I Russei Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: February 3, 2003

page 26

A Gardena/Woodland Paths by Russel Wright (1970) Russel Wright: Good Design is/or Everyone (2001) Orientation Video (date") brochure "Information Membership" brochure "Manitoga" Guide to paths and landscape •

The Manitoga library has several reports on file, e.g., Kress (n.d.)"The Know Nature Tour" and Attic & Cellar Studio (n.d.) "Preliminary Program Plan: a Working Notebook for the Fee Nature Tour") that provide a framework for interpretation of the woodland paths and landscape, building upon Wright's approach to directly experience nature firsthand.

•

Manitoga is currently creating, testing and installing a new sign at the Kiosk. This will provide the first "informational message" that a visitor sees, reads and hopefully responds to by leaving a contribution.

•

Currently, Manitoga does not have an easily validated means of documenting visitor numbers or demographics. A visitor comment book is available at the Kiosk and house tour visitor numbers are recorded, but these provide an incomplete record.

•

As part of the Site Master Plan study, Manitoga staff initiated a "Visitor Survey" (see "Visitor Studies" below) that is underway and as it continues will enable some record of visitor demographics, and also responses. A review of the visitor survey forms returned to date (approximately 50 surveys from tour groups) indicates that a majority of visitors respond to what they like most about Manitoga is "everything all together," that is, landscape, paths and house as an integrated entity of design with nature. If this general response were to be validated by additional visitor responses, Manitoga would have a clear indication of how to present and market its visitor attractions.

•

The current number of paid annual memberships is very low (less than 250 members) compared to the number of visitors to the site, indicating that a goal of visitor orientation is to encourage visitors to become members. This goal is reflected in the wording of the introductory message at the Kiosk.

•

All of the above steps are positive and can be continued, so that the Center can continue to improve the experiences of visitors at the site, increase its revenues for visitor offerings, and development its membership base. Continued focus upon improving the visitor experiences through interpretive planning can realize immediate improvement of revenue source and public support, while the Site Master Plan funding and planning continued over the longer term.

2.2.1

Current discussions of Board and Staff on Visitor Services and Interpretation The following abbreviated notes summarize the breakout group discussion of "improving the visitor experience" at the September 7, 2002 Workshop.

•

The Center will target a broad spectrum of visitors, including general public, professionals interested in design, design and education - students, special interests and collectors.

•

The primary visitor profile for limited access educational tours/events will be:

Manitoga I Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Plannblg Report

page 27

REVISE!); Februmy 3. 2003

Adult tourists. House Museum. Targeted audience by its interest in design and nature.

Uniquely interested. (National Trust). Small-scale visitor experience. Limited access.

Educational Opportunities Design professionals, Environmentalists, Landscape Architects, Architects, Designers, Theater People, Educators, Historians, including higher ed. students, archivists, Weekenders (regional), Design clients, Design educators Families and Children, Perhaps reaching further through off site education.

Recreational, hikers, neighbors •

The primary "visit" will be a house/woodland garden tour, 1-112 to 2 hours, to include: landscape (woodland paths) House/studio orientation - filmllecture/display

•

Features to be included in the interpretive experience (subject to facilities planning) should include: Restaurant - coffee/tea room "Eat the food - buy the plate" Gift shop Special interest facilities

•

Special events should be developed, using: Facilities Laurel Path (Spring tours) and possibly special weekend programs for moon/snow

THE INTERPRETIVE SCRIPT

2.3

To help achieve clarity and focus, interpretive planning is guided by a "script." Always a work in progress, the script is the "story told about the place." The script may be adapted to different age groups and interests, but is used to assure a thread of continuity for the entire visit. In should serve both to introduce and to summarize the interpretive story, its themes and sub-themes.

• • • •

2.3.1

•

The interpretive story or script can help make the visit better, and through evaluation, improved to respond to expectations and suggestions of different visitor groups.

Make the story of the place vivid and accessible to the different age and ability groups visiting the site.

Develop the interpretive script as the thread of disparate elements, so that they are tied together and related to one another.

Develop graphics and "interpretive learning" elements to create and reinforce the "story of the place."

Develop some of the stories in terms of the voices and personages of Russel and Mary Wright. This humanizes the interpretive content.

First level theme The principal theme and educational content of an interpretive plan derive from the primary mission and vision of the organization.

They in turn should be represented as easily understood words and images that convey the essence of the visit and organizational mission.

Manitoga I Russel Wlight J)esif,'11 Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: Februmy 3, 2003

•

page 28

For Manitoga, the key theme might be roughly stated as the "unity of design and nature," The coherent image "where it all comes together" is the Russel Wright house seen as an integral part of the landscape of the Quarry Pond, This view is captured in photos of Manitoga, In the approach from the Kiosk and proposed accessible path, it is first seen in the "Overlook" just off of the main path to the house, (See Plate 7), The text designed for the sign at the Kiosk provides the "first level" script. It suggests the opening sentence of the interpretive script: Welcome to Manitoga, the Home, Woodland Garden, and Hiking Paths created by Russel Wright (1904-1976).

He was on of the best-known industrial designers of American furnishing from the 1930's through the 1950's. R. W. Wright believed thut good design is for everyone.

His work reflects his love of natural, organic form and innovations in modern technology.

When Wright aiuJ his wife Mary purchase this 75-acre property in 1942, it had been devastated by a century of logging and quarrying. His vision for reclaiming the landscape and building Dragon Rock, their home, became his consummate achievement. They named this site Manitoga, which in the Algonquin language means "Place of the Great Spirit."

2.3.2'

2.3.3

2.4

Subthemes and second level messages The following suggests subthemes to build upon the above introduction, •

A place of inspiration ManilogaiRussel Wright Design Center is a place of inspiration of nature and deSign.

Russel and Mary Wright named this site Manitoga, which in the Algonquin language means "Place of the Great Spirit."

•

Lessons of a restored landscape Manitoga demonstrates the beauty that can be created by ecological restoration, The landscape, woodland gardens and paths were created by Russel Wright from a property devastated by a century of logging and quarrying.

•

The unity of design and nature Russel Wright's home and furnishings, reflects his love of natural, organic form and innovations in modern technology. He was one of the foremost industrial designers in America in the 1930s to 1950s, and believed that good design isfor everyone.

Third level: detailing themes and supporting messages will provide a longer script to introduce and summarize Manitoga's mission and visitor offerings. A beginning version of a third level script is contained in "Realizing the Dream: The Campaign for Manitoga/Russel Wright Design Center."

INTERPRETIVE PLAN MATRIX The Interpretive Plan Matrix provides a framework by which to develop interpretive messages and media. It s purpose is to assist in planning a coherent presentation of organizational values and educational content offered by a visit to the site.

Manitoga I Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Report l<EVlSED: February 3. 2003

•

• • •

page 29

The wording of themes and messages are suggested only, to illustrate how themes, message, content, evaluation and interpretive elements can be coordinated. Eventually, the interpretive script becomes the basis of a memorable and compelling story that informs and inspires visitors.

The matrix is most useful if developed by group engagement (staff, board, volunteers and educators) with the interpretive program.

To be effective, the interpretive script is a living document, and is improved and tested, with adaptations made for different groups and purposes.

The Matrix indicates how the key interpretive themes and messages (Col. 1), convey specific educational content (Col. 2), and are communicated through elements of interpretation, that is, publications, signage, and landscape and exhibit settings (Col. 4).

The listing of "Outcome evaluation" (Col. 3) indicates how results can be evaluated and continuously improved.

1

Key themel messlIge·.·

.2 ... ,Educational content .

of inspiration or nature and design

• experience of place.

• unity of land and designed structures.

Interpretlveelemenls'

visitor evaluations.

- public recognition, news items, articles.

1- Web site 4- Entry drive 6- Kiosk/brochure(s)

- participation responses by differelll user groups (all ages and abilities I.

7- Pavilion 8- Accessible path

- prototyping and evaluation ofpavilion and interpretative settings.

9- Restored woodland pat and landscapes

- evaluation of landscape Ipath restoration projects.

8- Accessible path

• ecological landscape restoration.

- increase in volunteers (path maintenatlceI

9- Restored woodland pat and landscapes

• landscape in transition.

~

10- Ravine path

• woodland garden

increase in visitors, increase in representative groups (all ages and abilitiesI.

• discover nature (Ravine interpretation)

- regional national recognition.

• "feel nature" experiences.

Lessons of a restored landscape Mani toga demonstrates the. beauty that can be created by ecological restoration.

4

Outcome evaluation ~

A place of inspiration

MatlirogalRllssel Wrigllt Design Cemer is a piace

3

Manitoga I Russel Wlight Design Center Site Muster Planning Report REVISED: February 3. 2003

The uuity of uature and design Russel Wlight's home and furnishings, reflect the

• Process of design inspired by nature.

source of inspiration in

natural, organic form and

• Design as I'waiting for

his innovations in modem

the spilit"

page 30

- evaluation of building restoration projects.

10- Ravine path

- visitor evaluations,

11- Wright house & studio

12- Exhibits - increase ill visitors, increase in representative groll 13- Gift shop (all ages and abilities.]

technology.

- increase in all revenues/ visitor/ membership/ volunteer • Role of merchandising. support ci11lracteristics.

• Design and technOlogy

-tour/publications/ gift shop revenues

* 2.5

14- On si te programs

15- Off-site programs 16- Interpretive center

numbered elements are detailed in Interpretive Plan Storyboard (below).

INTERPRETIVE PLAN STORYBOARD A "storyboard," as the term is used in interpretive planning, is a scripted and illustrated sequence of themes, subthemes and messages conveyed in settings and interpretive media that, taken together, is a script or story presented during one's visit to a site. o A storyboard of the visitor experience helps to coordinate the presentation of interpretive messages and media so that it is engaging, informative and memorable. While redundancy is often effective in order to firmly convey a theme, using a storyboard approach is a very effective means to avoid confusion and diffusion of interpretive and educational media. o Means of communicating the themes and messages include direct experience of a place (e.g., sight, sound, smell of landscape and building settings), views, signage, exhibits and printed media (walk books).

The proposed storyboard of the visitor experience at Manitoga is outlined below. Possible thematic messages of each element are suggested in the heading italics, but only to illustrate a possible interpretive message. Actual subthemes and messages for such elements would be worked out by further development of the interpreti ve framework, only outlined here for illustrative purposes.

1

Website "Enter the unique world ofRussel Wrighf' The Web Site should be designed as a ''first message" of a visit to the site and include:

First level information: Driving directions Hours of operation and ticket requirements Tour reservations Key themes and features of the site (limited to three to five images) On line ordering of publications (gift shop)

Second level information (options): Organizational information (mission statement)

Manitoga / Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: Februmy 3, 2003

page 31

Membershi p si te Gift shop items (publications and other?)

History of site highlights (with photos) "How to enjoy your visit" educational discovery tour

2

Directional signage: "Manitoga.5 mi." (representative example) Directional signs placed on the key roads help drivers anticipate the tum-in. They also are very effective in informing the local tourist and commuting traffic about the location. Route 9D has a number of such signs for nearby visitor destinations (e.g. Boscobel). Signage is subject to approval of State Highway Officials.

3

Entry sign: "Welcome" Manitoga currently has a distinctive entry sign that is visible and well placed for identification of the entry drive. In the event that Manitoga operating hours extend to evening hours, illumination of the sign will be a practical necessity.

4

Entry drive: "Woodland drive" The proposed entry drive is extended in length to achieve an acceptable gradient and also to introduce the visitor to views of the ravine. These views will provide some glancing anticipation of "intimate nature" that is part of the Manitoga experience.

5

Parking areas: "Environmentally sensitive parking and landscape" The proposed parking (Phase I) will provide the point of drop-off and on site pedestrian orientation. The slope of the drive and parking area drainage may dictate hard surface paving.

However, porous paving and landscaping should be incorporated as appropriate (such as "bioswale" drainage that uses water holding plants in swales and tree shading). The parking area itself should be an example of environmentally sensitive land use.

6

Kiosk and brochures: "Welcome to ManitogaiRussel Wright Design Center" Pedestrian circulation from parking will be directed to the Visitor Guide Building and Kiosk.

The signage currently under development will provide the first message in both words and images, along with a "way finding" map.

7

Pavilion: "Waitingfor the Spirit" The proposed (Phase I) pavilion, if placed so that it is easily reached from the kiosk, can be used for "gathering" of interpretive orientation (either by staff, volunteers, or teachers accompanying the tours). Additionally, it can include interpretive material. It's main message, however, is conveyed by it placement and its design, " ... to be still" or similar phrasing to reinforce the contemplative mood and the phrase that characterizes Wright's design process as "waiting for the spirit." The pavilion will also serve the multiple uses of an outdoor classroom aud event pavilion.

8

Accessible path to House/studio: "Restored landscape and paths" The proposed (Phase I) path(s) to the house are intended to meet the standard of public access. The approach to interpretation reflecting Wright's own approach is "experiential" that is, to encourage the experience to "feel nature." Thus, no signage is required along the path to the house. The events of the walk will include a gradual rise within restored landscape, a optional side loop to a key overlook, a walk over the proposed bridge, and a loop around a vernal pond to the northwest of the present house & studio parking area.

Manitoga I Russel Wlight Design Center Site Muster Planning Report

page 32

REVISED: February 3.2003

8a Key viewpoint: "Design with nature" This accessible path can have a leg path, also accessible gradient, leading to the present overlook where the visitor will see the splendid view of house, waterfall and quarry pond.

Seating could be provided, as this is a destination point (which would terminate the accessible path if the pedestrian bridge is not built.)

8b Pedestrian bridge: "Path to a landmark landscape/house setting". The proposed pedestrian bridge will connect the property at the dam so that an accessible gradient is maintained.

8c Vernal pond loop: "Study the transit of annual cycles of life in nature" A vernal pond exists in the area shown for a loop trail to the northwest of the House that can be improved and will add an additional natural setting on the accessible pathway. Vernal ponds have their own unique lessons, which could be presented in interpretive settings (also see ravine discovery path, below).

8d Entry court: "Accept our personal welcome to the Russel Wright House" The pathway brings all visitors to the entry court or "front door" of Manitoga. Here, an interpretive sign could be located, to tell the story of the welcome that Russel Wright extended to his guests. Features of the house and landscape integration will be self evident, but could be reinforced by interpretive sign information and by house tour literature.

9

Restored paths and landscape: "An historic landscape restoration in transition" The project of restoration of the woodland landscape and paths will continue at Manitoga, as a very high priority along with House restoration.

Restoration of paths and landscape can also tell the story of how a site, such as Manitoga, can and must be maintained to preserve its ecological integrity, with selected areas shown

as "before" and "after" restoration.

The Laurel Path loop and eventually all paths can be restored to be particularly engaging in springtime, and as a result, should be considered a top opportunity for developing a springtime visit event and tours, in addition to house tours.

The Manitoga theme of "Garden of Woodland Paths" will attract volunteers, visitors and club groups particularly devoted to gardens, one of the strongest markets for tour destinations in the U.S. East Coast.

In keeping with the Russel Wright approach, to avoid an "instruction" as to what to experience in nature and to thus let nature speak for itself, suggests that no interpretation is needed along the paths designed by Wright (leaving more active means of interpretation to the paths, such as the vernal pool path (Sa) and the ravine path (see below).

Way finding signage may be appropriate, as more visitors are welcomed to Manitoga, in order to make the visit more comfortable for first time visitors (see Section 2.6).

10 Ravine paths: "Design and nature" The ravine path with amphitheatre is an optional proposed element as part of Phase I or later.

The fund-raising and phasing advantages of the proposal are discussed elsewhere. The interpretive advantages are: The ravine path can accommodate tours, such as family and school groups (without impacting the tranquility of the historic paths).

Content-rich interpretive media and "discovery trail" features can be developed with local schools and also appeal to families and children, based on "discovery learning principles" (see Section 2.7).

Manitoga I Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Report

page 33

REVISED: February 3. 2003

Peer examples of similar "discovery trails" include New York Botanical Garden "Adventure Trail" and Austin, Texas Nature Center "Detecti ve Trail." These are distinguished by a variety of interpretive settings that work for self-guided visits.

The amphitheatre can be created to provide a streamside seating area within the ravine for class or camp meetings, or special events.

Although the steep change in grade and slopes may prevent fully accessible paths, portions of the ravine path can be accessible, with boardwalk overlooks accessible from the parking lot and thus placed high in the tree canopy, which offer special places for quiet and nature observation (year-round).

11 House/studio: "The Home of Russel and Mary Wright" The Beha Report (1996) sets forth a recommended program of restoration, which Manitoga has embarked upon, on a funds available basis. As the house, studio and landscape are restored, tours of the house that are already popular will become the special experience that distinguishes Manitoga as a house museum and landmark site.

Wheelchair access to the entire house is not reasonahle. However, it is conceivable that wheelchair access be extended to the level one-half level below the entry (by filling in the floor to eliminate one step and adding a wheelchair rail). This would enable a visitor in a wheel chair to overlook the living room and participate in that portion of the house tour.

Artifacts of Russel Wright dishware and fnrniture can be displayed within the house (and studio). Space for artifact display will be extremely limited until Manitoga offices can be moved out of their current location in the uppermost level of the house.

Renovation of the studio will extend opportunities for interpretive exhibit of the Wright legacy of design. Subject to phasing and until classroom and meeting rooms are created by new facilities, the studio may be considered for small group meetings, including small classes for paid educational programs.

12 Exhibits and collections: "The legacy of Russel Wrighf' The recent (Summer-Fall 2002) Russel Wright exhibit at Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum demonstrated the power and effectiveness of exhibiting Wright artifacts.

Curated by Donald Albrecht, the exhibit featured display cases with ceramic and other dinnerware, roped areas with furniture, and several very effective furniture settings, with background audio used effectively, and one with a recreated 1950s living room setting with Television showing the Edward R. Morrow interview with Russel Wright. (see Albrecht, 2001).

The proposed gallery as part of the Interpretive center (Phase 11) at Manitoga could include exhibit space that could be set up in ways effectively shown at the Cooper-Hewitt would thus complete the "Story of Russel and Mary Wright." This would make Manitoga a world-class and unique site where the visitor can experience landscape, house, and collections represent the life work and legacy of one designer.

Although the size of exhibit space will be limiting, the potential for "changing exhibits" would attract seasonal and repeat visits. In this case, the interpretive center will have to be designed for ''first class" museum/exhibit capacity (provision for environmental control, security, fire protection) and space to store and handle collections.

It is likely that Manitoga would hope to mount traveling exhibits, which require space for storage and handling on site. These considerations are included in the square foot estimates of the interpretive center documented in Section 1.10.2.

13 Gift shop: "Continuing the legacy of Russel Wrighf' A gift shop should be conceived as part of the visitor's experience.

Manitoga / Russel Wright Design Center Site Muster Planning Report

page 34

REVISED: February 3, 2003

Its design and layout should reflect the same high quality museum standard of display and lighting appropriate to an exhibit (although more compact).

Items for purchase may include "educational resources" that would extend the learning begun by a visit to the site. Manitoga's current list of video and publications are already serving this function. Other items would be developed that would extend both the mission and market of Manitoga as a museum and design center.

14 On-site educational programs and events "Design as discovery" The interpretive features of the site can help support educational programs. In normally requires several years to identify, offer and test special educational offerings. However, Manitoga can begin to market various programs to extend its mission and market. Support of on-site programs created by the interpretive program elements, including: Trail book with features of the Ravine Discovery trail. If the features of the Trail are developed with teachers, they will adopt it as an "outdoor classroom" experience.

The covered pavilion and amphitheatre will provide areas for outdoor classes.

The woodland paths can become developed in educational content by view books and perhaps number features (as discussed above).

Availability of indoor c1assroom(s) is required for an educational program to be developed. As an interim arrangement, a meeting room (capacity of about 20) might be considered for the Studio. This would enable Manitoga to develop a class/seminar/special program offering, to determine and build a market for special programs.

Alternatively, a temporary tent might be considered for part-year use, in order to initiate and test on-site educational program offerings.

Creating the interpretive elements of the site, especially the pavilion, amphitheatre and garden paths, will also create a venue for special events, sponsored by Manitoga or reserved and rented to other parties. These features with the accessible path would be venues for art and craft design festivals and wedding parties.

Local organizations, such as Boscobel and Garrison Art Center, are the best source of "peer bench-marking" to determine local market opportunities of on site programs and events.

15 Off-site educational programs "Sharing the legacy of Russel Wrighf' Organizations that build the capacity of offer educational programs often create "off-site" programs to extend both mission and market. In Manitoga' s case, these off-site programs that would be supported by its interpretive program may include: Traveling exhibit of a Russel Wright collection (for display in "high visibility locations, e.g., Albany airport, Stewart airport, Dia Museum, etc.)

Lectures andlor classes developed for on-site use can be promoted and presented off-site.

This will be effective if Manitoga develops a unique public art and design curriculum based upon "design with nature" principles.

Particularly effective during the friend-raising and fund-raising, a professional quality "slide program" can be prepared so that different staff, board and volunteers can present the program in many locals and meetings.

16 Interpretive center: "a place of discovery of design and nature" The interpretive functions of the proposed interpretive center include welcoming, orienting and offering visitor services. The Interpretive center will serve as the beginning point of orientation and the end (repose, refreshment, food, exhibit and gift shop.)

Manitoga I Russel Wlight Design Center Site Master Planning Report

page 35

REVISED: February 3. 2003

The key "story telling" elements within the Interpretive center may include: Circulation of all visitors through the Interpretive center so that it serves as both entry and exit way to the paths.

Orientation videos. Similar to the present high quality video, along with others that may be developed.

Site orientation, including maps (ideally a contour model) and possibly audio program to provide a self-guided introductory tour.

The outcome of a site orientation setting or exhibit should be tested to be sure to result in a visitor's being able to decide how to spend their time on site, length of stay with their options clearly understood.

Ideally, no staff should be required to interact with visitors, except in those settings specifically designed for visitor welcome. Volunteers can provide welcoming, ticketing and gift shop staffing for a visitor center.

A welcoming greeting is reliably the "most important" message that a visitor receives upon arriving at any visitor center).

Exhibits as well as gift shop offerings should be part of the entry, (as cul-de-sacs off of the entry and exit paths).

The "design with nature" features of the architectural design of the Interpretive center should be self-evident as part of the inspiration of design and site, but may also deserve a separate interpretive display.

If classrooms, exhibit spaces and staff offices are located within the same interpretive center (subject to acquisitions), acoustical and visual privacy should be created so that the visitor stream is clear, coherent, and does not interfere with or be interfered with by adjacent activities.

2.6

WAY FINDING ON PATHS AND TRAILS Trail marking and interpretive signage should be coordinated in graphic and educational form and content, so that trail marking, interpretive signage, maps and walk books are mutually reinforcing. Approaches to marking paths and trails used by the public follow these guidelines and criteria:

â&#x20AC;˘

Safety, to indicate where it is safe to walk, indicating marked trails have been inspected to remove obvious hazards, including falls, rock slides, overhanging limbs, management of poison ivy, etc. Color coding helps, but some users are color blind, so a geometric system is recommended for safety markers, ideally with universal graphic language.

â&#x20AC;˘

Way fmding, usually related to trail maps. Trails are marked and identified, with reference to a trail guide. Ideally, such trails are identified (at some point) in terms of length and time (average adult). It also helps to mark distance (usually every half mile). Ideally, occasional north arrows help (for orienteering).

â&#x20AC;˘

Interpretation. Trails are often marked with numbers that help identify things to see (relating to a simple guide on both sides of one page). A "Walk Book" can be developed, but keep it simple.

Manitoga I Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: Februmy 3. 2003

page 36

•

Interpretive stations and learning circles: Always with seating, and with interpretive signage for significant features. Nature is best appreciated in silence and left as is. A good rule for interpretation is "Can you improve on silence?"

•

Universal design: Some portion interpretive trails and interpretive stations should be designed according to principles of universal design, accessible to all people of all ages and abilities. A short "sensory trail" near parking is ideal. It should be hard surfaced and include sounds and fragrances of nature. To fulfill the spirit of universal design, a site should offer the entire range of outdoor experiences to persons with disabilities as both visitors and interpreters. Travel over challenging terrain might be provided by scheduled assisted tours with rugged wheelchairs (wide base and fat tires).

2.6.1

Way rmding Russel Wright's approach to design of woodland paths was to create the spirit of adventure and discovery of experiencing nature firsthand, without interpretive guides, to enable direct and firsthand the surprise of a discovered path, an unanticipated visa and the risk of crossing a stream on an unsteady log. Several working drafts and reports on file at Manitoga , e.g., Kress (n.d.)"The Know Nature Tour" and Attic & Cellar Studio (n.d.)

"Preliminary Program Plan: a Working Notebook for the Feel Nature Tour") build upon this approach to interpretation.

Following this approach, interpretation on the paths is thus not required in any direct 01' obvious manner, following the very good and long-standing guide to interpretation "to let nature to speak for itself."

However, as the number of first time visitors increases, especially visitors who are not frequent hikers, providing clear way finding and mapping will be increasingly appropriate, at least on those few selected paths which will invite increased use, at which time the need for and appropriateness of way finding will be easily established by visitor surveys.

•

•

Design/or way finding should provide: Reassurance about orientation and way finding communicated directly in the way that a facility or urban setting is designed. Circulation pathways and graphic communication should be clear, direct and obvious to a first time visitor.

Visitor's understanding of the spatial organization of a setting, including locations of likely destinations and routes to them, should be provided by introductory orientation stations and maps located at significant decision points.

A very simple approach to way finding includes: • Trailhead shows map of trails and provides a take-along trail map.

• All branch intersections in the trails are marked by a letter (A, B, C, etc.)

• Reference to north arrow on the map and repeated on the intersection letter post is optional but helps people orient themselves.

• Distances between lettered intersections are indicated on the map in mileage.

• If the trail is provided with a walk book or single-page summary, the interpretive stations are numbered and marked 1,2,3, etc.

• Outstanding interpretive settings are indicated on the trail map and by modest signs, especially if they are trail spurs (overlooks, stream-side repose, etc.).

• Signs that point the shortest way to the exit, the trailhead, or parking are helpful.

Manitoga I Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: February 3. 2003

page 37

Trail signage systems should be set up on a provisional basis and tested by a broadly representative group-including a range of ages and abilities-and including "first time" visitors who are not familiar with the trails.

Maps Posted maps, portable maps, and signs that are well designed can enhance way finding.

• Maps identify key decision points in a visitor's circulation path.

• Maps be simplified and instantly understood "for the mind's eye" in graphic representation.

• Maps contain key label and symbol information "where one needs it," rather than with complex legends.

• Maps and orientation signs should display information from the viewer's perspective, utilizing north arrows if possible for consistent orientation.

• Maps and orientation signage be "prototyped" and tested as mock-ups before installation.

2.6.2

Letter sizes recommended for pedestrian signs For directional signs legible to the pedestrian, a rule-of-thumb for directional sign lettering is a letter-height rninimum of 2 in. (5.08 cm), plus an additional 1 in. (2.54 cm) of letter height for each 25 ft. (7.6 m) of viewing distance. More specific dimensional guidelines for signs that have interpretive content beyond orientation and way finding are indicated in Table A. TABLE A: Viewing distances and minimum heights of letters lor Informational and Interpretive signs. (after Ham 1992, p. 266).

2.7

Type of Text

lt04ft Oto1.5m

4t06ft (1.5 to 2 m)

30ft (9m)

60ft (18m)

Titles

2 an (3/4") >72 pI.

2.5 an (1 ") > 96 pI.

10 em (4") >384 pt.

15 em (6") >576 pt.

Headings

1.3 an (1/2") >48 pI.

2 an (3/4") > 72 pI.

8 em (3") >288 pt.

13 em (5") >480 pI.

Body text

0.6 em (1/4") >24 pI.

1.3 em (1/2") >48 pt.

6 em (2") >192 pt.

10 em (4") >384 pt.

Captions and specimen labels

0.5 em (3/16") >18 pI.

.6 em 0/4") > 24 pI.

N/A

N/A

PRINCIPLES OF DISCOVERY LEARNING The following definitions are listed for reference and are helpful in design of informal learning settings for interpretive planning for nature centers, museums, and similar venues.

Discovery learning Discovery learning is based on triggers to curiosity, letting the learner discover ideas, insights, images, concepts and information by taking action. The behavioral setting for discovery learning is best conceived as a scene of a detective story.

Maniloga I Russel Wtight Design Center Site Master Planning Report

page 38

REVISED: Feblumy 3. 2003

Inquiry-based learning Similar to discovery-based learning, "inquiry-based learning" describes a relationship between teacher and students, emphasizing the asking of questions (essentially the Socratic method). The teacher is a knowledge guide who gives clues to how the questioner might pursue a question, rather than giving answers. The goal of inquiry-based learning is the development of the ability to question and to pursue ones questions in depth, to gain insight, to make connections, to identify and use the entire range of creative search and information sources and strategies.

Learning setting The selting that encourages learning behavior is the most important ingredient of successful educational programs. An effective setting requires easy in-and-out circulation (no crowds or bottle necks), ability to sit and focus but also to move from here to there, places to sit in small learning circles and at shared learning stations. There should also be some places somewhat removed (such as a separate lab or room) for a sense of quiet and concentration.

Multi-modal learning There is a wide range of learning styles, characterized by Howard Gardner as "linguistic, mathematical, spatial, musical, kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic." In informal and voluntary learning seltings, youngsters learn by taking action. Adults take the time to study and read signage. Youngsters learn by interacting with one another, and less so, from adults. All learners try to "internalize" what they experience, that is, to relate it to their own lives.

Place-based learning Place-based learning uses a place or an "ecology," such as a woodland selting or a sea shore, to represent a broad set of relationships, e.g., ecology, physics, climate, cosmology, biology, botany, etc., as well as human culture (how humankind has adapted to and been adaptors of such places). In a "living museum" approach, placed-based learning might be demonstrated by seltings with role playing that represent ecological and cultural settings, such as a thatched hut in the Amazon Rain Forest, the Iroquois Council of Nations Circle in the pre-Colonial Hudson-Mohawk region, etc.

Importance of self-esteem Learning is reinforced by increasing one's self-esteem. A sequence of "challenge, action, reward and reiteration" needs to be built into the learning experience. Thus, discovery settings should challenge ones physical and motor skills and/or talents, but also give some sense of reward.

Detractors to discovery Crowding, noise, inappropriate lighting, dark footpaths, crowds in front of key information signposts, no place to step aside, hyperactive behavior of others, distracting exhibits, confusing choices in circulation paths, and fatigue (attention spans dwindles with the length of stay).

Things that really work Sense of discovery to begin with, an overall "gestalt" that makes one comfortable and not anxious, a quiet, clear, calm and collected atmosphere that "slows one down," impressive and memorable attention grabbers, sequence from attention grabbers to cul-de-sac places to spend a few minutes and possibly further removed privacy (study circles), places for peer and family learning, peer interpreters, clear and consistent messages, pathways, way-finding,

Manitoga I Russel Wlight Design Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: Februaoy 3. 2003

page 39

parsimonious lighting (used to reinforce the story), range of all learning modes, a summary experience, getting and giving feedback, at least one very memorable experience, interactive settings that use the out-of-doors for exercise and release.

2.8

EVALUATION AND TESTING Design of interpretive elements is guided by evaluation, based on explicit objectives. Major graphic systems and exhibit should be tested as mock-ups and prototypes. The following is a protocol of evaluation commonly used in museum exhibits and equally applicable to outdoor and indoor graphics and interpretive settings. To qualify for funding from most granting sources for museums and exhibits requires evidence of experience in testing and evaluation.

A Front-end evaluation (pre-design) • Define the learning objectives of the exhibit • Define the audience (age and/or learning group) • Establish "pre-design" guidelines by questionnaire, interview and ''focus groups" • Define the guidelines for preliminary exhibit design form and content, including "expected outcomes," and, to the extent possible, how these outcomes will be measured.

B • •

• •

C •

2.9

Formative evaluation (pre-installation) Prepare various mock-up designs and/or learning settings Pre-test various mock-ups with the audience ("target" learning groups) including focus groups and interviews. (Evaluation is carried out by "third-party" evaluator (e.g., different than the sponsor and/or designer).

Document findings, including outcomes and measurements.

Change the design as appropriate, including ways to continuously improve the exhibit/educational setting.

Summative evaluation(s) (post-installation) Establish a means to continually evaluate and improve the effectiveness of the exhibit/learning setting.

VISITOR STUDIES Museums, historic sites and other visitor venues that have a steady stream of visitors will find they have a responsive visitor population from whom to obtain helpful comments through visitor response forms, visitor surveys, questionnaires, and, when appropriate, through focus groups reviews of exhibit and interpretive design proposals.

A necessary component of an interpretive plan is a description and understanding of the visitor, age range, capacity of outdoor walking, length of travel to site, time of stay on sight, and motivations. This data can be gathered by sampling, surveys, questionnaires administered on site, and/or analysis of data registered at the time of ticketing. Such data is needed to design interpretive exhibits and settings that address the capacities and interests of visitors, who may become program participants, supporters and volunteers. This data is also helpful if not essential after the interpretive center is built, which will depend on visitor attendance at the center.

Description and analysis of the visitor profile is the basis of an interpretative plan. It is a first step in creating visitor-oriented programs to achieve specific outcomes and, once programs

Manitoga I Russel WJight Design Center Site Muster Planning Report HEVISED: Februa,y 3. 2003

page 40

are in place, it provides a basis for continuing feedback and evaluation to see if you are achieving your intended goals and outcomes: Outcomes of the interpretive plan that improves the visitor experience may include: • Informed visitors who can enjoy passive recreation, education and research.

• Increased participation in programs.

• Increased support of public constituency to help fulfill the organizational mission and stewardship role.

• Increased resources, including donations and/or volunteer contributions.

The definition of "visitors" may include: • Occasional visitors alone or in small groups, often in family groups, principally interested in the visitor venUes and features of Manitoga but also in outdoor passive recreation.

• Larger groups on trips organized by schools and clubs interested in an educational experience, but also in passi ve recreation.

• Fee-based or free-of-charge program participants, signed up for outdoor (or indoor) educational programs or events offered by other organizations (rental fee for use).

• Volunteers, each with a variety of interests, career motivations and abilities. Many have special interests that can find an outlet in special projects, such as preparing interpretive material on topics within the interpretive plan framework.

2.9.1

Current visitor demographics Manitoga estimates that the number of visitors to the site to be in the range of 10,000 to 12,000, including hikers and tour guests and program or event participants. At least 1,500 visitors were documented in 2002, from tour, program and event participation. The vast majority of visitors are therefore hikers who are interested in the landscape and paths and who do not visi t the House.

At least I,SOO visits Were documented in 2002, per the following breakdown and profile: House and Landscape tours are scheduled on one Saturday each month from April through October, with 17 visitors/group. This equates to a current tour capacity of 357 per year.

Addition to these public tours (normally booked to capacity), there were 21 privately scheduled special interest groups in 2002, accommodating 525 visitors.

School groups. There were 15 school group visits in 2002, varying in size and totaling approximately 260 students and teachers. Staff reports a downward trend in school visits (not because of Manitoga offerings, but due to reduced approved field trips).

Summer camp: An average of 36 campers per year plus counselors, educators, volunteers, totaling approximately 235 participants.

Photo shoots: There Were four scheduled "shoots" in 2002 (the House is available on a fee basis), involving approximately 30 participants total.

Other special events: A plant sale/lecture event attracted approximately SO attendees in 2002.

Opening Day Garden Conservancy, Hudson River Ramble, Solstice Celebrations, AmeriCore Team Day, volunteers, approximately 125 attendees.

Manitoga / Russel Wright Design Center SJte Master Phmning Report REVISED: February 3. 2003

2.9.2

page 41

Documenting visitor demographics As part of the Site Master Plan study, Manitoga initiated a visitor survey, as a means to begin to track visitor demographic and also to obtain feedback useful for programming.

Defining the demographic pl'Ofile of visitors helps to focus on the expectations of all visitors and thus suggest opportunities of attracting new audiences. For example, when visitor pl'Ograms include offerings for college-age young people, adult and seniors, the potential is to draw individuals who are very appreciative of educational pl'Ograms, hobby-nurturing activities, research, and high quality content of exhibits and publications.

When visitor pl'Ograms include offerings for families with children, the potential is to draw a new and increased number of visitors, (in some Nature Centers up to 20% of the local community) who look for: A range of choices for recreation, Exploratory and discovery-based experiences, and Choices of both indoor and outdoor activities. (the younger the visitors, the shorter the attention span).

The following charts, Visitor Demographics and Calendar ojVisitaJion, help to define differences in visitors. Analysis will suggest ways to impl'Ove existing pl'Ograms, to attract new visitors and to reach out to groups that are currently underrepresented.

10 Research internships, volunteers, youth leadership

Young adults Adults

24-64

35

and volunteers

65 +

tour groups, members, vol unteers

10

and family """ VI<ICâ&#x20AC;˘â&#x20AC;˘

Range oj special events

30 selfguided tOllrs

Calendar of Visitation Indicated below is a method of showing results of tracking the number of visitors for various time segments reveals "overload peak hours" when there may be too many visitors to enjoy the experience vs. "empty hours" where programs can be scheduled to increase visitors without imposing on staff and facilities. (Grey tones shown are conjectural and only for illustration)

Manitoga I Russel Wlight Design Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: February 3, 2003

10am 1011am

page 42

j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j

page 43

Manitoga I Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Plannlng Report REVISED: February 3,2003

3

BUSINESS PLANNING FRAMEWORK This section of the Report outlines the estimated costs that might be anticipated in implementing Site Master Plan improvements, including costs and sequence of steps for design, approvals and implementation.

Construction costs are estimated for the Site Master Plan infrastructure and structures. Phase I includes new driveway and accessible path to the Wright House and Studio, with optional elements such as Ravine path and Pavilion. Phase II includes extending the driveway and parking and construction of the Interpretive center, the size being contingent on property acquisitions and on program and marketing opportunities, The Phase I and II estimated construction costs are listed on the following page. Below are "Preparation Steps" shown here for convenience in planning and to provide the context upon which a successful capital campaign might build.

Maintenance Endowment In addition, it is recommended that capital fund-raising include an endowment by which to maintain and improve the physical infrastructure and facilities in perpetuity. As a goal, the "endowment" amount should equal the capital cost. This amount invested in an endowment account would generate 5% per annum, an amount that should not necessarily be expended each year but available for preventative maintenance, replacement and improvement.

Manitoga Site Master Planning

page 1 of 2

2003·2012 NOTES

•

•

• •

DRAFT

Five-year + 5 year planning perspective Costs indicated are estimates only, for general reference, referenced from Year 2002 construction data.

Schedule of dates is conjectural and for illustration purposes. "tbd" indicates cost not directly related to facilities and infrastructure, to be determined by Manltoga.

Cost estimates includes 15% contingency and 1 5% fees.

Preparation Preserve and improve the assets of Manltoga (two years) FY 2003·2005 • Build staff, board and volunteer resources Develop staff Improve board capacity in fund-raiSing and development Enhance volunteer docent program •

•

• 2003-2004

2004

Dec. 21,2002

$ budge' tbd tbd tbd

Improve positive return from assets (income, fund-raising) Enhance revenues across aU income categories: donations, tours, programs, sales, events Continue to develop grants for property asset improvements Initiate annual Spring fund-raiser (such as Woociand Garden tour)

tbd tbd tbd

Stabilize and improve property assets (house, landscape and collections) Continue house/studio restoriiltion Continue landscape/path restoration Evaluate and test visitor orientation and interpretive media (trail guides, publications) Establish collections policy and improve representative collections

tbd tbd tbd tbd

Prepare for site facilities development (per Phase I below) Initiate property planning/design of Phases I and II for Site Master Planning and submittals Obtain approval for site master planning Inaugurate fund-raising for Phase I (silent phase) Prepare construction documents for Phase I

tbd tbd tbd tbd

Preparatory Phase (2003-2005) TOTAL

• O.

page 44

Manitoga I Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Report

REVIEW DRAFT December 21, 2002

Manit oga Site Master Planning

page 2 of 2

DRAFT

Dec. 21, 2002

Phase I Inaugurate site master plan Improvements (three years) 2006-2008 2006 1 Undertake site infrastructure improvement s to make Manitoga accessible 1.1 Construct new driveway, with stone gutter, and 1 2-car parking 1.2 Construct accessible path to house, Including steel bridge 1.201 Pave entry court of RW House/Studio (local quarried stone) optiOn 1.3 Construct Ravine trail "Discover Nature" path and amphitheater option 1.4 Construct outdoor pavilion/classroom (28x28) option 1.5 Establish maintenance endowment 2008.

Upcbte market assessment for Phase III Interpretive Center programs Verify market studies to determine best mix of programs and facilities Finalize financial, interpretive and architectural program for center Inaugurate architectural design competition (open or limited) Inaugurate capital campaign for Interpretive Center (public phase)

option

$ budget

200,000 136,000 68.00er 130,000 86,000 tbd

tbd tbd tbd tbd

Ph... , SUBTOTAl (2006-2007) .~ration

620,000 b

dPh... ClMUITIVETOTALS 2003-2006

20000 .+1>

Complete the site master plan Improvements (two to five years, subject to fund-raising) Phase" 2007-2012 2 Construction of the Interpretive Center and upper level parking 2.1 Building shell, offices, visitor facilities (5,000 SF (9 $320/SF) 2. 1a State-of-art gallery (2000 SF, subject to market studies) option 2.2 Additional parking and landscape to upper level (38 cars) 2.3 Add to maint enance endowment

Ph... " SU8TOTAl (2008-20 12)

1.600,000 640,000 180,000 tbd

2,420.000 c 00000 •

OTAlS 2003-2012 continuing

• •

7 Restoration fund (to complete house/studio and landscape restoration per Seha Report)

tbd

d

8 Opportunity fund for acquisitions Various properties (confidential) tbd opportunity e.g. Red House can be used for offices and staff residence Deli Lot and Flag Lot can be used as altemate driveway (less visual impact but not lower cost) . Property to immediate south enables road reworking to make driveway entry/exit safer.

•

earliest

~eparation

Phase I

Phase"

Preserve and Improve the assets of Manitoga Inaugurate the stte master plan improvements Complete site master plan Improvements

TOTAL .................................. _.................. ...... _..... _..... ... ...... _.................... ......................

The following subtotals to be calculated: Facilitiesllnfrastructure subtotal Restoration House/Studio and landscape Maintenance endowment subtotal Staffing subtotal Acquisition fund subtotal Consultant fee subtotal Special opportunity cost allocation

lines a+b+c - Maintenance Endowment line line d lines 1.5 and 2.3 tbd line e tbd tbd

o 620,000 2,420,000

04

3,040,000

+C

Manitoga / Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Report

page 45

REVISED: February 3. 2003

3.2

Partnerships implications for the Site Master Plan The issue of partnerships was identified by the board of Manitoga as important in their long range planning, and possibly relevant to issues of the Site Master Plan. The topic was a breakout group discussion at the September 7, 2002 Planning Workshop.

Partnering with other institutions may influence Site Master Planning decisions in the following ways:

Partners on site The site master plan is designed to meet the projected needs of Manitoga. However, the same infrastructure and facilities may also accommodate site amenities, programs and facilities that may attract partners, thus extending Manitoga's mission and market. For further notes, see the Record of Discussion of the September 7,2002 Site Master Planning Workshop (Appendix A) • •

•

•

This potential increases possible revenue sources for programs originating at Manitoga.

The Manitoga site is limited by area, parking and facility size limits, as well as visitor capacity (any large groups would disturb the contemplative nature of a visit to the House and Woodland Garden Paths).

On-site facilities that Manitoga creates for itself can be made available to partnering organizations in order to increase financial support, including: Offices and staff at Manitoga shared by partners.

Exhibit and gift shop items provided by and producing % income for partners.

Outdoor venues and events available to partners and/or for non-partnering rentals.

Manitoga could "showcase" products of partnering and sponsoring organizations, especially related to restoration and conservation.

Manitoga library and archives could be available to scholars and researchers.

The future options of a "Manitoga design curriculum" would reinforce the need for and specific requirements of the classrooms included in the interpretive center space program.

The progress made in considering the above-listed partnering opportunities in the next threeto five years will help finalize the nature of building space needs in Phase II.

Partners off site Partners and potential partners have site features and facilities that will serve Manitogarelated programs, thus reducing or eliminating the need for comparable facilities at Manitoga.

These therefore offer organizational and/or physical infrastructure to help assist Manitoga in fulfilling and extending its mission. While these partnering arrangements are not likely to provide substantial revenues to Manitoga, they provide a means to extend the mission and market.

• • • •

Manitoga programs and exhibits can be used for outreach (per discussion under Storyboard "outreach" above) and for marketing, including reciprocal memberships.

Partnering with Boscobel would create "two-stop" tours and perhaps create additional nearby parking for overflow events at Manitoga.

Partnering with Syracuse University will create a more direct access to the Russel Wright Archive housed on that campus.

Collaboration with other design institutes will provide a source of faculty. curricula and students for joint offerings.

Maniloga / Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Report REVISED: February 3. 2003

4

page 46

REFERENCES Albrecht, Donald, Robert Schonfeld and Lindsay Stamm Shapiro, 2001. Russel Wright: Creating American Lifestyle. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc and Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum, Smithsonian Institution.

Ham, Sam H. 1992. Environmental Interpretatwn. Golden, CO: North American Press Kaplan, Rachel, Stephen Kaplan and Robert L. Ryan, 1998. With People in Mind: Design and management of Everyday Nature. Washington, DC: Island Press 1998 Sauer, Leslie Jones / Andopogan Associates. 1998. The Once and Future Forest: Guide to Forest Restoration Strategies. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Tilden, Freeman. 1957, 1977. Interpreting Our Heritage. University of North Carolina.

Raleigh, North Carolina.

Wessels, Tom. 1997 Reading the Forested Landscape Woodstock, VT: Countryman Press.

Reports on file in Manitoga Library •

Alofsin, Anthony. 1985. "Historic Structures Report."

•

Andropogon Associates, Ltd. 1982. "Draft of Master Plan for Manitoga, a Preserve of the Nature Conservancy." Philadelphia: Andropogon Associates, Ltd. 47 pp. Xerox

•

Attic & Cellar Studio. (n.d.) "Preliminary Program Plan: a Working Notebook for the Fee Nature Tour") Xerox 56 pp.

•

Beha Associates. 1996. "Condition Assessment and Preservation Master Plan."

•

Franklin, Carol Levy, 1982, updated 1993. "Design and Management Guide for Manitoga," NEA Grant Report #11-4213-264. December 1982. 210 pp. Xerox.

•

Kress, Stephen W. (n.d.) ''The Know Nature Tour" mimeograph. 24 pp.

Internal reports (record of discussion in preparation for this Report) • • • •

Summary: Scoping meeting at Manitoga Feb. 8, 2002 Summary: Ad-hoc Committee for Site Master Planning, July 18,2002 Visitor Survey: preliminary survey of results [this survey is on-going] Record of Discussion: Sept. 7, 2002 Site Master Planning Workshop (Appendix A)

APPENDICES A B

Record of Discussion Manitoga Site Master Planning Workshop September 7, 2002 Site Master Plan Plates: Maps and Illustrations

Manitognrrhe Russel Wright Design Center Record of Discussion Site Master Planning Workshop Septembt:r 7, 2002

Record of Discussion Site Master Planning Workshop Manitogaffhe Russel Wright Design Center This Report records discussions and break-out group notes in bulleted format to be referenced as appropriate for Site Master Planning information and guidance.

Table of Contents Goal of workshop Agenda Participants Manitoga's Mission Principles of Site Master Planning Introduction Group I Report: Build upon the mission of Manitoga Group 2 Report: Create Partnerships Group 3 Report: Design the Visitors' Experience Group 4 Report: Focus on Collections Summary of the day Workshop Evaluation

page

1 1 1 1 2 3 4 6 8

9 10 11

page I

Manitogaffhe Russel Wright Design Center Record of Discussion Site Master Planning Workshop September 7, 2002

Record of Discussion Site Master Planning Workshop ManitogalThe Russel Wright Design Center Goal of workshop: To involve Manitoga board, staff and invited guests in formative discussions of our site master planning options, including a framework for interpretation at the site and related financial planning,

date: time: location:

Agenda

Saturday, September 7, 2002 8:45am -4: 15pm Conference Room, Boscabel, 1601 Route 9D, New York

9:00am 1O:30am

11:00 12:3Opm 1:45 3:00 4:00 4:15

Introductions and overview of morning break-outs, Morning break-out group discussions, 1. Build upon the mission of Manitoga 2. Create partnerships 3. Design the Visitors' Experience 4. Build our Collections Breakout group reports LUNCH BREAK (break out groups continued) Afternoon discussion (based on three planning options) Showtime summary of the day Summary and evaluation, Adjourn

Participants Bill Burbach Andrew Capitrnan Joe Chapman Anne Davidson Dorothy Dunn Margaret Doyle Len Hopper Jeanne B. Horend Jim Horend Kathleen Ginsberg Hettie Jordan-Vilanova David McAlpin Dennis Mykyntyr

Facilitntors Holger Nisssen Janna Orstadt Thomas O'Brien Anne Osborn Fred Osborn Ruth Farnall Ani ta Pidala Joan Powers Virginia Sirusas Bill Straus Amy Weisser Bruce White Anne Wright

Carol Franklin, Andropogan Colin Franklin, Andopogan Don Watson, EarthRise

Manitoga's Mission

Manitoga's mission is to preserve the legacy ofpioneer designer Russel Wright-his home, landscape, products and philosophy-and share them with professionals and the public.

Manitogaffhe Russel Wright Design Center Record of Discussion Site Master Planning Workshop September 7, 2002

Pri nci pies

page 2

(handout by Carol Franklin)

• All visitor facilities must be up to general!>, recognized standards: road grades must be relative!>' eas i!>' accessible by cars and buses even in the winter (grade = maximum 10%) and there must be handicapped access to the Visitor Center and to the house, and some trails (grade = 8% with railing, 5% without).

• The design of all new facilities must be professional in Quali\y and reflect Russel Wright's own high design standards and his design philosophy.

• What Manitoga is selling is an experience. This experience begins, even before the entrance with literature, website and tie-ins with other NYC and area attractions. But the visitor must also experience the character of the site immediate!>'- from first moment they enter the site- as if they are Wright's special guests.

• The site design needs to engage the bUildings and the landscape in a dialogue with the visi,tor. In the same spirit as Russel Wright designed his house, the proposed road, parking, connecting paths and buildings, must bring the visitor into contact with the site- surprising, delighting and engaging-both the first time visitor and the freQuent guest.

• Manitoga must have three or more significant visitor attractions. At present there is a strong consensus that these three attractions cou ld be: • • • •

the house its immediate landscape the Visitor Center. additiona l attractions might be a shop, a museum/design center, and the outer trails.

• All site improvements and visitor facilities shou ld contribute to a seam less and apparent!>' effortless experience of this dramatic and magical world.

• Restoration of the House and its immediate landscape is critical to the visitor experience.

Both are historical artifacts and works of art. They reQuire museum Qua li \y conservation and long-term care.

• The house, its immed iate landscape and the outer trails were a continuing voyage of discovery for Wright. They are a demonstration of who he was, what he did and how he lived. They are not static and their restoration can employ knowledge, materials and techniQlles not availab le to Russel Wright at the time, but consonant with his exp lorat ions.

• The new visitor facilities should be treated as something Russel Wright might have designed, not as a copy of what he did before but with the energy, curiosi\y and passion for nature that are essential to his original work.

• The new facilities should be ful!>, planted, sculpted and set into the landscape in w'!Ys that explore and demonstrate Russel Wright's ideas and stated principles. All visitor facilities, like Russel Wright's house and landscape should involve the visitor in the continuous!>' changing, big and little dramas of nature.

Manitogarrhe Russel Wright Design Center Record or Discussion Site Master Planning Workshop September 7. 2002

page 3

Introduction to principles of the site master planning (see Carol Franklin handout above) Recognized standards Allow Manitoga to be accessible to the public (current standards of access) High standard of design Experience the aesthetic of nature Dialog with site Three WOW experiences in order to attract range of visitors and repeat visitors Seamless visit/story so that visit to site is memorable Restoration of site, house Visit as Voyage of Discovery Design out of Passion for Nature (RW) Dramas of nature (RW photos) Comments and key phrases from participants: Celebrate nature Enable the experience of design exploration Influence the policy debate Achieve financial sustainability Using what you have - making do. laboratory for design and products determine the capacity of the site for visitation How visible should the design products be?

Contemplative experience for all. .. making the experience "public" Be experimental.

Design is a verb.

Define What is Manitoga?

House Site Woodland Garden Collections Exhibit Camp Educational programs Look back and look forward - the RW legacy RW "Waiting for the Spirit" Issues to be addressed in Site master Planning: I. How to get access from 9G onto site? Traffic, road and parking standards.

2.

Where do visitors go? ... choreography of visit.

3.

Separate design museum or not?

4.

How to connect to house?

5 How to handle busses? 45-50 cars 6 How to improve site and create "Habitat Enhancement" 7 Need to include Acquisition plan for longer range planning.

Manitogaffhe Russel Wright Design Center Record of Discussion Site Master Planning Workshop September 7, 2002

page 4

Group I Report: Build upon the mission of Manitoga Who are we? What are we?

Return to Mission Statement

ThinkTank

Nexus of Partnerships Connections to other organizations • Visitor experience • Research

Preserve, protect share RW legacy, w/ property and public outreach • Product • Home design • l<u1dscapedesign Larger Public Agenda Re: Consumption Sustainability Dynamism Joins past and present Relevance to today Elements/Principals

•

•

• Institute • Research Museum House of Museum Artifact Celebrate it not as an example but as an individual

Feel like RW's guest Allow contemplation Laboratory

Priorities Re: Finances Are these sequential?

House museum l<u1dscape Then institute

Visi tor Center Design Center • Creative experience - teaching visitors • ? Can personal house be an example?

Woodland Garden

•

• •

• •

House Static in interpretation Climb inside RW's mind l<u1dscape Needs interpretation Visitor Center Don't disturb centrality of house and landscape Build that building? Build the building we would build today?

Limited Access: opportunities Nexus of Educational Experiences • House/general audience Architects/Designers • School Groups Universities/Museums • Camp Groups

ManitogalThe Russel Wright Design Center Record of DIscussion Site Master Planning Workshop September 7, 2002

Need to consider what educational experience would be.

Model : Schindler House Experience Tactility Caution: How to avoid interrupting the contemplative expow/too many people.

Models Mission stated succinctly: Preserve RW's legacy Protect and Share Design with nature Larger public agenda: Consumption Sustainability Contemplation Experiential Seeking "Sizzle" that addresses and promotes this agenda House:

Static? Dynamic?

Intimate? Porous?

Concern: too many visitors at anyone time, not enough at others.

Landscape:

Living/movinf!)changing Needs interpretation What would RW do?

Audiences

Hikers 5% Families 20% Target those uniquely interested!

Professionals Educators Tourists?

Nat'l trust members Models: House Museum

Children (?)

Designers Architects Collectors

Repository vs. Theater

Design Center - experiential Feel like RW' s guest Institute ThinkTank Design studio Summer Camp also for adults What does Mission?

What supports Mission?

page S

ManitogalThe Russel Wright Design Center

Reeord of DIscussion Site Master PlannIng Workshop September 7, 2002

Group 2 Report: Create Partnerships .

Kinds of Partnerships Benefits - problems Goals Scope Cultivation Staffing (needs - sharing) Acquisition by or of other institution Marketing collaboration RW Award (need to undertake Market Research as part of year-by-year Business Plan)

Manitoga as National Resource Benefi ts to partnerships Pos. $ 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

8.

9.

Neg.

10.

II. 12.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Shared resources (space and staff) Broad scope (access to other arenas) Increase reach (impact) Clout/increase donor base Avoid redundancy (don't reinvent the wheel) MfordabiJity (economic) Expertise (political clout) Space facilities Exportability Marketing Collaborative Program Staff office space Impact on resource needs control Time consuming (to partner) Who' s in charge (lead partners) W /friends like these .. .

Dilution of mission Over! y commercial Lose sense of place Unwelcome compromise

Kinds of Partners Similar Institutions House museums nature center Academic community Schools (Educ. Community) Design community Landscape architects Restoration ecologists Business/Corporate sponsors Geographical proximate government Foundations .. .

page 6

Manitogaffhe Russel Wright Desigu Center Record of DIscussIon Site Master PlannIng Workshop September 7. 2002

Goals Access/parking Collaborate with Boscoloel for bus parking Collab. @ all transport/parking Metro North Intennodel hub Amtrac DOT NY-NJ T.C. Shape public policy - DEP. (NYC) NYSERDA,DOT,SPEC, OPRTTP Topics: roadside planting, native plants Sustainable Architecture Restoration (landscape - public service) Architecture mid-20th cent.

SHOWCASE Share the process of design. Manufacturers and products of our partners. (windows, roof) (HV AC) and RW designs Reproduction agreements Techniques/materials

Partnership Results Vehicles for partnership for a (program result) Sustainable architecture sympo.

Educational benefits (videos, design curricula) Partner with education inst. for curricula development In school with academic institutions For wild plant sale Solve space problems for office/parking Broaden donor base Increased visibility exposure

Collaboration for Marketing Get brochures out to other galleries, house museums, and nature centers.

Collective entrance tickets Product distribution at sister organizations.

Reciprocal memberships Get RW name out there Market research with other org.

Using Partners for Cultivation (process) Joint grants Follow up on membership work with manufacturers to mutual benefit.

Events of mutual program (follow up) Staffing Institutional objective to integrate functions - cultivation.

page 7

Manitogatrhe Russel Wright Design Center Record or Discussion Site Master Planning Workshop September 7, 2002

pageS

Acquisition Merge with well established well-funded institution.

Maintain identity Out post of museum or design school Marketing Get the RW name out there Research Goint with another org.)

New consortium of Hudson RiverlValley organizations DEA, Bosobel, Locust Central Working together to share resource, diminish competition Collaboration of Design Institutes Elevate RW by co-operation.

Creation of trade organization to promote American Modern Design and designers.

Develop educational programs Design curriculum Develop models in Manitoga School Program an experimental/laboratory for design education Working with national/state/local teachers/educ, Organizations.

Group 3 Report: Design the Visitors' Experience [Andrew] 1.

Target visitor a. general public b, professional interest c. education - students d. special interests. - collectors

2.

Package expo - I -112 to 2 hours a. orientation - film/lecture/display b. environment C. house and studio Facilities a. b.

C.

3.

Restaurant - coffee/tea room "Eat the food - buy the plate" Gift shop Special interest facilities

Special Events a. facilities b. what events - laurel/moon/snow

Audience Adult tourists. House Museum. Targeted audience by its nature. Uniquely interested. (National Trust). Small-scale visitor experience. Limited access. Educational Opportunities

Manitogaffhe Russel Wright Design Center Record of DIscussIon Site Master PlannIng Workshop September 7. 2002

page 9

20th c Design Environmentalists Profile Landscape Architects Architects Designers Theater People Educators Historians Weekenders (regional)

The person paying for design Coming for design education

Including higher ed. students, archivists

Children "Get them while their young" Local Perhaps reaching further through off site education.

Recreational Hikers Neighbors

Group 4 Report: Focus on Collections • • • •

Inventory Archival off site storage facility Conservation and restoration of materials Archived - collection - Library - U. of Syracuse - archive - copy - how we interact with them?

- Security and insurance

•

Need to build collection from donations Collections management policy

•

Number each item and assign to responsible person.

Display (requires philosophical discussion, collections display policy and approach) House - Goal - change house 2 times a year (spring and fall) Studio Visitor Center - display and education Landscape • Executive director andlor staff who understand history and preservation requirements of museum control of collections • House/studio (museum) design plan (interiors) • Visitor experience - collections on loan?

• Essence of the house was change ... Do you freeze it in time?

•

Is the experience the house (architecture) or in the setting The house with a collection frozen in a certain time

•

Design Plan

Manitogaffhe Russel Wright Design Center Record of Discussion Site Master Planning Workshop September 7. 2002

page iO

Summary of the day What do we do now to have best results in next 5 years?

Make it real three phased approach: I..

Access and parking ·use existing building(s) (possible access to house) 2.

Build visitor center 3.

Expand vi si tor center • • • •

House restoration is making progress Visitor facility should be a single integrated building Continue working on programs Extend site by acquiring more property - (particularly the "deli" property)

Manitoga should be the "Best in the World" place to experience Russell Wright's legacy "All pull in the same direction" (David) Momentum!

As a first phase build entrance road.

Unity of land and designed structures View from 9D - attraction Studio as gallery Adrian's Day House Collections Site

• • •

Site Plan tied to financial (business and marketing) plan Include Staffing plan Targeted funding opportunities and needs.

Restoration as program asset -landscape/house Program partnerships Program models target audience niching Retain intimacy of site by limiting number of visits but use websites publications to extend audience.

Dragon Rock as period house - studio as exhibit Kiosk + collection "Making do" means dealing with limitations and opportunities at hand and proceeding with incremental development.

Finalize plan and financial development.

Fix broken landscape Continue camp and program

A 22 NANITOGA worlcshop

MANfTOGA Site Master Planning Workshop

Summary: Participant Evaluations of the Workshop

Saturday, Sep. 7, 2002

5

agree 1 I understood the goals of the meeting:

2 The goals of the meeting were met: 3 Ny contribution was valued: 4 The discussion will be helpful in the future:

•

9

"

9

3

"

3

10 17

5 My overall evaluation of the meeting is: SUMMARy........•.....•..•.................••••.••.•...•...••.......

Note on comments:

10 5296

0

6

excellent

BwtagB

dis~gree

neutral

14

"

score

from5rol

0

2.

4.5

0

2.

4.3

0

0

2.

4.3

0

2.

4.7

2.

4.3

10096

4.4

3

0

0 poor 0

996

196

096

average

3896

page 1 of2

2

3

"0

. .

total of.••••••••••

24

averaJ eva!. on "scale 1 to 100........ .

responses

5

~~

S!g

o " "",:<!

-

c

i* .,

~

G8

.....

J Den's facilitation of the day ai/awed for an organized sharing of ideas.. Colin's presentation of the 3 options was a good bt!ginning.

2 Excellent moderation and canmentwy from master plan team. fnspimonal. Positive perspective offered as a tTarnework for disrussion. Depth of knowledge represented by platVling team and Board is outstanding.

3 This was the most a-garized meding/ccnference that I have ever attended. W~I done!

4 Olanges to the original plans

""00

e?

0

88 96

"'0

iii :0 c c

~

Comments are recorded verbatim.

~~

8 ~.

t'l

'0

What I liked best:

6

~

0 ...II<" '" 6'

N

~

~~

~Jg.

::;"'

"...~~ -. '§

:!! n

!l" ;?"

"-"~

IIQ

~

0

*is ~

'" "'" ~

Theplans

3

7 Good organization 8 The group interaction was good.

9 Planning meetings at Dragon Rock prior to today.

77 The breakouts 72 Breakout sessions and reports.

13 Bringing together of different perspectives by people that have diverse bacJ<fTounds.

14 Great initial site plan that is the start of the farge, long process but we can't get there without this.

75 Interplay and exchange between participants 16 Enthusiasm and intelligence of consIitants 77 Plans and facilitated disaJSSion.

!!

:-l

§

18 Energy and caliber of participants.

19 Exploration of the possibilities•..

20 The ideas wet'e clear and exciting and well thought out..• aI/ Board members here stimulated and participated.

21 Schemes that were meant to provoke dscussion.

22 23 The facilitator's skill in running and organizing meeting. carol F. 's inspiration and plans were provocative. The new voices and the energy of the break-out groops.

24 Having a pJan to evaluate. General organization of day and facilitation.

Qf our guests.

The commitment of the Board

~

A ZZ MANITOGA workshop

MANrTOGA Site Master Planning Workshop

page 2 of2

Saturday, Sop. 7, 2002 What I liked least: 2 Provide more program planning emphasis to development of master plan. Please do not let the excellent summer camp go.

6 Discussion points could be more related to more realistic programs.

7 Leaving without ccmmonly agreed upon action plan and unified vision and focus.

8 Not enough short term actioo items identified. Board still has no consensus.

9 Not a cohesive group. OippJed by lack of staff capacity and $. Not your fault but hopefully you can help to pull them together!

10 Extra explanations when I already -got it. " 12 A bit too much lecturing.

13 A little too huge attention to the "detail" of the proposed solutions.

14 Collections, break-out discussion was useful enough for discussion but was redundant 16 Umited scope of interpretation in ""aster PlWJning assignment 17 Perhaps a summary site analysis and SLmmary' of the differences among the alternatives and reiteration of the process for the day would hzve helped focus the dscussion with CoIin--people got lost in det<ll1s and confusion.

18 Late awkward start. Jumped into solutions without clarifying purpose, mission, program. Facilitator had his 0Ml agenda, his own input that often got him into discussions with one or two people while he lost the crowd. Very' little leadership for "big" thinking.

19 I lacked the background information about all of the issues, the limits and restraints but maybe this was for the best.

21 lack of integration of "sizzle" ideas with action plans fa the big three focus points.

22 Notrealistic. .. toomuch "blue sky" 23 The break out groups were conventional and did not provide much "new"' thinkin~a at least not as muCh as I had hoped-reinforcing the "house museum" is a «miting concept. We were "talked at" too much and a great Iength•.•consuItants need serious editing. What can a Center be? (see continuation below) Additional comments/suggestions Following through with a visita survey and audience study will help to focus the goals. Developing an understanding of the needs and desires of all potential audiences including the unknowledgeable lay persons, kids, seniors, will inform the programmatic decisions and therefore the site plan.

2 I would be happy to participate;n future dscussion re programm;;rtic content/agenda/strategy.[DD] 3 There are so many sma/I things that volunteers can do to help. Pf..EASE think of ways that we volunteers can pitch in, such as clezing & painting the visitor building, etc. Opportunities for volunteers to help has falJen off;n tM past year. No task is too mundane fa those \o'AJo really want to help and be part of Mr. Wright's vision. Please don't forget your eager volunteers from the past•..• [JO] 11 Frame a funcJ-rajsing plan/business plan to stimulate board's direction on these subjects.

13 Emphasize the "positive" opportunities of grade changes to mitigate the negative Impact of necessary design interventions.

14 Do several plans: one that is bare bones and practical and one with all the bells and whistles. Bwlding could be 2-stOl)' structure w/Znd fl. Left empty or designed.

15 Can we do without . , executive director? Need more about "where and how. n 16 We need a conceptual design of the visitor center!

17 For immersion of design professionals, follow the protocol of RW's '"Feel nature" and '"Know Nature ..... this was his attempt (with consultation of other high minds) to have the contempl;;rtive moments. Points to our dscussion about auaenc:e-target uniquely interested foIk... Re public hearings: we need to strategize about what is the benefit of neighbors and town re: Manitoga's improvements. What would happen if RWDC fails??? Subdvision??? Do we need to have in our back pocket a build-out plan of "matter-of-right" development? Do we need to have $ of economic benefits lost to the town if RWDC could not do a plan that would support its future? camp: the group cid not rv/e it out... where would it relocate? I like Altem;;rtive #3 drive and buildings. Would like to see schemes that go beyond our plan, not only the deli property gut also the ava7abJe lots on Good Bank Road and Old Manftou••.just to see if they take pressure off of our site. I think the board could use more facilitilted disrussioo, even if it doesn't revolve around the master plan. How about giving the Board some homework to continue, then draw them together.

20 We need to choose a "ane- and stay in it. Often these workshops are extremely helpful to give us options and exciting ideas.•.but NOW is he time for us to make decisions and stay single-minded as to fhe pursuit of a decision, since the rate of acccmplishment ~ Manitoga is not as fast as our physical and monetary rate of deterioration. So-telling us this is a tool may prolong our inability to move ahead. But it is stin useful. Thank you. [A W] 21 Set date for the next meeting.

23 Don't forget Mary Wn"ght... continue brainstorming with more informed speaJlative experienced people. O"eate the next step of discussion that becomes an organizationaJ/ institutionaJIeducationaJ model for Manitoga. Russel gave us much to inspire. . .it is up to the Board to promote his and Mary"s ideas and to demonstrate how relevant they are today. Manitoga should not become an end in itself, but a springboard for ideas and solutions useful to the professional and general public as we address C)(M" future. Thanks again. (88).

24 Beginning orientation should have been stronger. Graphics of plans focused too much attention on parking in negative sense. [Insufficient] orientation of [late arriving] visitors.

...~

":!: g ==

=-0

0"

~

'tl

~ 10 ;: 10 0·

...

a. S· ~~

t:l"

c~~ c ~~

o "= OIl:;;

;=: :::I . ~,.

= :=" 'C ., -~\?_.

";;

tv

g, tv

~

..:E n ~

~

~

§ g :'(0"

=

~

'"~

..

~

"0 '0

OIl

" ,;

'0

3

~

;-l

§

~ tv

-$ MANlil0GA MASTER flAN

MANITI0GA MASTER PLAN

AlL TlERNATlE SCHlEMlE #ll

ALTlERNATlE SCHIEMIE #2

Plate

1

Scheme # 1

Plate

2

Scheme#2

/

-$

-$-

MANliIOGA MASTER PlLAN

'dl\:'M~A"'""?'e"rlf

pn ......,II4N' eoy?rJ<.l _#

.til"""""""""

.,.rN

:2~

A1..1flERNA 1flE SCHEME 1#3 Plate

3

MANli1fOGA

MAS1r1E~

PLAN

Zve;v'A£'$1#m";t~

r&a_r?_

47H

-Z-fl.

Scheme #3 Plate

5

Proposed Master Site Plan

__ 11'D

, r- ..... ....

I ./

I

~-.

orT/ON#- 2. (7",)

I

') ~\

/'

~ ~~ ~ " ,.

Z ~~ « « (§~

"

~5 0"

OW ?,::>:

~~ ,<

-

~

~

,

,..-;

~

"

.§ ~

~

.','

"

.'

£3

OJ

6

Manitoga property

'\...~

"

\ ~

"~.A.

,/

'- --.- -.,.

'.

'"

'.

,

'\

j

"-

\

,~~

\

"'~ '-

---------

\\

" \\ '~\ \

,

,

---~

\

/

/

--...

""

''''--

--

~.

.

-- ..:;. ~-

\

04

g~ 22

/ // / /

\

1 \

/ .

-- _": , -""....

~ '/ ' (I /-/ . J~ .

// - ~ ;,/ ~.o;.

,.",./ "..- -~ :::/ / ,'

I / / ....? / / I I[ I /;

II

,

-- .r(i-7-...() __ j' l l

_

)) / II

___ '-.) / .

__ ~_

1/ ,/ /

1/ '(

/1'

/~~

fir

'I I

I) 1\

rr-...... ) /

I{

1\

1/ J

1

' -

I

\\ /\ ~ . ~\ ~

I '/ ~~J\\

/ ,- 1117!'\ 1\

'

1':/l(lt('\ 1/ I I ) '-, _ } I~ I 1/ I{('=

(

\

I I I

/

1( (

~!I I

~ ,',' i I" I '><.!.J~

II ~ .

II.

,~~~-. __\~ --::SC"

J

/j-----._----__ -.J:~

/ /

-..J

..

"Sl

Manitoga I Russel Wright Design Center Site Master Planning Andropogan Associates. Carol Franklin and Colin Franklin, EarthRise Initiatives, Donald Watson, FAIA

It.

~

I i'. ;'

~ ~

------

" ~J _---1j;.'-..-

i .... ~ ...

,

-\\~

Existing features to be preserved, restored and improved 01 02

03 04 05 06 07 08

Dragon Rock House and Studio HC drop-off to house (existing) Quarry Pond Mary's Meadow Viewpoint of Dragon Rock Visitor orientation Existing road (steep grade) Entry from Route 90

Phase I Site and visitor improvements 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Bus drop-off and improved parking Improved driveway Outdoor classroom/event pavilion Amphitheatre Ravine discovery trail New foot bridge (HC accessible) New HC accessible path to house Orientation to improved paths and trails Improved bathrooms Phase II

20 21

22

Intep'retive Center Additional parking and tum-around Maintenance building

~ ,)---

--- / I

~

. .- .

-.

'~-" . "

---

.~-

--- "

.~-."

.',~

' -'-

- '-' -::- ...

I

~

... -":~"

-- :.:::.- ",~~~

----:;. -. ...... . '

- -: ~

;. "

,

(

.... -

'-.:--- -~-...

~,.- ~~

,,

...... -- .

., '-

.-

~

., '

-----,

..

"-.'

-

.. .-=---:

'

---

--- ~--足 r,-- -

.. -0. . _.

--'~==::::-:::--::....::'.--.~- . ..

1/-- .-'---..

" . - - -.... -

-',.c..----.- -,

~ '"",,,,"

.-

_. ....--..... . .......

Plate

8

...

- ---_._-

""

. ~~

Bird's Eye View

DONALD WATSON FAIA, NeARS EarthRise TEL

54 Larkspur Drive Trumbull CT 06611

(203) 459-0332

e-msi/: lakesideDJ@aol.com

TRANSMITTAL

February 12, 2003 David McAlpin Fradkin & McAlpin Associates 920 Broadway, Suite 904 New路York, New York 10010 Anita Pidala ManitogaJRussel Wright Design Center 22 Old Manitou Road Garrison, NY 10524 Dear David and Anita:

Attached is a corrected copy of Site Master Plan Report with revisions dated 3 February 2003.

As you requested, it is being sent directly to the board and staff, per the distribution list below.

The proofreading of the Dec. 21 DRAFT by Ruth Parnall and review comments of Dorothy Dunne are gratefully acknowledged.

Please accept the appreciation of the Site Master Planning Consultant team, including Carol Franklin, Colin Franklin and myself, for the great assistance of board and staff in preparation of this Report.

If helpful, I would be pleased to meet with the Manitoga Board or Ad-Hoc Committee to assist in any further revisions that will make this a working and usable document.

Sincerely,

Distribution: David McAlpin Ann Wright William J. Burback Joe Chapman Anne S. Davidson Andrew W. Capilman Donald Albrecht Margaret A. Doyle James L. Horend Susan Magrino Dennis J. Mykytyn Holger Nissen

Thomas O' Brien Anne Todd Osborn Molly Ott Ambler Jean Roos Virginia P. Sirusas William H. Straus Vivian Linares Alison Rooney Bruce White Ruth Parnall Anita Pidala, ManitogaJRWDC (1 repro copy, 5 file copies) Carol and Colin Franklin, Andropogan (3 file copies)