ABSTRACT 
 
 
 
 
Title of Thesis: REMEMBERING PLACE: REVIVING THE 
RITUAL OF MAKING 
  
 Stephen Pasquerello, Master of Architecture, 
2017 
  
Thesis Directed By: Matthew J. Bell, Professor, School of 
Architecture, Planning & Preservation 
 
 
This thesis will address the reclamation of an abandoned building to revive its 
historical significance and restore a sense of place.  We aim to preserve and enhance 
the value of the building in ways that remember the history of what was there, while 
implementing forward-thinking program.  
The project seeks to create a STEAM Academy in an adaptive reuse of an 
abandoned factory built in 1916, known as the Tractor Building at Clipper Mill.  This 
building, as part of a complex of buildings once owned by the Poole & Hunt Foundry 
and Machine Works Company, has a strong history of industrial-era manufacturing.  
This thesis aims to preserve the history of the Tractor Building and enhance its sense 
of place by reviving the ritual of making.   
The proposed school will place an emphasis on collaborative environments for 
students that promote applied learning through the act of making and creating. The 
design proposal calls for multiple intervention types: inserting new program within 
the existing shell of the building; juxtaposing the existing building with new forms; 
and linking the old and the new through physical and visual connections. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
REMEMBERING PLACE: REVIVING THE RITUAL OF MAKING 
 
by 
Stephen Michael Pasquerello 
 
 
Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the  
University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment 
of the requirements for the degree of 
Master of Architecture 
2017 
 
 
 
 
Advisory Committee: 
Professor Matthew J. Bell, Chair 
Professor Brian Kelly 
Assistant Professor Ming Hu 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
© Copyright by 
Stephen Michael Pasquerello 
2017 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ii 
 
Table of Contents 
 
List of Figures ............................................................................................................. iii 
Chapter 1: Overview ................................................................................................... 1 
Organization .......................................................................................................................... 1 
Concepts ................................................................................................................................ 1 
Goals ...................................................................................................................................... 5 
Chapter 2: Site ............................................................................................................. 6 
Site Selection ......................................................................................................................... 6 
Site A_Tractor Building .................................................................................................................. 7 
Site B_Fells Point Recreation Pier ................................................................................................ 21 
Site C_Foundry Station ................................................................................................................. 26 
Challenges & Opportunities ................................................................................................ 35 
Chapter 3: Precedent ................................................................................................ 38 
Setting the Stage .................................................................................................................. 38 
Intervention Types ............................................................................................................... 40 
Insertions ....................................................................................................................................... 40 
Additions ....................................................................................................................................... 45 
Juxtapositions ................................................................................................................................ 50 
Chapter 4: Program .................................................................................................. 55 
Vision .................................................................................................................................. 55 
Space Defining Elements .............................................................................................................. 57 
Programmatic Precedent ...................................................................................................... 59 
HQ ................................................................................................................................................. 60 
Torpedo Factory Arts Center ......................................................................................................... 61 
Roombeek Culture Cluster ............................................................................................................ 63 
STEAM ................................................................................................................................ 65 
Chapter 5: Design ..................................................................................................... 67 
Initial Approach ................................................................................................................... 67 
Design Proposal ................................................................................................................... 73 
The Plaza & Wetland .................................................................................................................... 77 
The Communal Building ............................................................................................................... 79 
The Bridge & Science Labs .......................................................................................................... 82 
The Workshops & Classrooms ...................................................................................................... 85 
Bibliography .............................................................................................................. 90 
 
  
 iii 
 
List of Figures 
 
Figure 1, Baltimore Metropolitan Area, Potential Sites (Source: Author) ................... 6 
Figure 2, Site A: Tractor Building (Source: Author) .................................................... 7 
Figure 3, Poole and Hunt Company Building Complex (Source: Author) ................... 8 
Figure 4, Site A: Relationship to Surrounding Context ................................................ 9 
Figure 5, Site Boundary, Left:1916, Right:2016 (Source: NRHP and Author) .......... 10 
Figure 6, Site Topography (Source: Author) .............................................................. 10 
Figure 7, Site Access (Source: Author) ...................................................................... 11 
Figure 8, Left: Foundry Yard looking West, Right: Sand Wheel, Erecting Shop 1 
(Source: National Register of Historic Places) ................................................... 12 
Figure 9, Building Additions Over Time (Source: Author) ........................................ 13 
Figure 10, Office, 2003 (Source: Betty Bird + Associates) ........................................ 13 
Figure 11, Southeast of Blacksmith Shop, 2003 (Source: Betty Bird + Associates) .. 14 
Figure 12, Interior View East of Foundry, 2003 (Source: Betty Bird + Associates) .. 15 
Figure 13, Erecting Shop 1 Interior 1980 (Source: Betty Bird + Associates) ............ 16 
Figure 14, Erecting Shop 1 After Fire (Source: Cho Benn Holback + Associates) ... 16 
Figure 15, Left: Erecting Shop 1 East Facade, 2016 Right: Raised Interior Court 
(Source: Thornhill Properties) ............................................................................ 17 
Figure 16, Tractor Building Interior, 2016 (Source: Thornhill Properties) ................ 18 
Figure 17, Erecting Shop 2, Original North Facade Building 21, 2011 (Source: 
Acroterion) .......................................................................................................... 18 
 iv 
 
Figure 18, Erecting Shop 2, North Facade Building 21.B, 2003 (Source: Betty Bird + 
Associates) .......................................................................................................... 18 
Figure 19, Wagon House, East Facade, 2003 (Source: Betty Bird + Associates) ...... 19 
Figure 20, Area of Site for Potential New Development, Highlighted in Blue.  
Boundary and Center, Indicated by Dashed Line (Source: Author) ................... 20 
Figure 21, Site B: Fells Point Recreation Pier (Source: Author) ................................ 21 
Figure 22, Left: North Elevation of Facade Building, Right: View of Pier to the South 
(Source CharmCity1) .......................................................................................... 22 
Figure 23, Recreation Pier, Ground Floor Plan (Source: Tartar Rosenthal/Apollo) .. 23 
Figure 24,Recreation Pier, Upper Level Plan (Source: Tartar Rosenthal/Apollo) ..... 24 
Figure 25, View on Pier Towards the South (Source: Jaclyn Borowski) ................... 25 
Figure 26, Site C: Foundry Station (Source: Author) ................................................. 26 
Figure 27, Foundry Station 7-Building Complex, Naming Conventions and 
Dimensions (Source: Author) ............................................................................. 27 
Figure 28, Major Elements of Surrounding Context (Source: Author) ...................... 28 
Figure 29,Building 1 (Source: Author) ....................................................................... 29 
Figure 30, Building 2A (Source: Author) ................................................................... 30 
Figure 31, Building 2B, (Source: Author) .................................................................. 30 
Figure 32, Building 3 (Source: Author) ...................................................................... 31 
Figure 33, Building 4 (Source: Author) ...................................................................... 32 
Figure 34, Building 5 (Source: Author) ...................................................................... 32 
Figure 35, Building 6 (Source: Author) ...................................................................... 33 
Figure 36, Building 7 (Source: Author) ...................................................................... 33 
 v 
 
Figure 37, Axial Organization and Potential Areas of Development, Highlighted in 
Blue (Source: Author) ......................................................................................... 34 
Figure 38, Smokestack and Water Tower (Source: Author) ....................................... 35 
Figure 39, Site Selection Matrix (Source: Author) ..................................................... 35 
Figure 40, Locating Potential for Interventions (Source: Author) .............................. 38 
Figure 41, The Uffizi, Florence, Italy (Source: Apple Maps) .................................... 41 
Figure 42, Palazzo Vecchio, Galleria degli Uffizi, Piano Nobile (Source: Michael 
Dennis & Associates) .......................................................................................... 42 
Figure 43, Doma Gallery Concept Diagrams (Source: Author) ................................. 43 
Figure 45, Doma Gallery, Glass Box in Wooden Enclosure (Source: W Architecture)
............................................................................................................................. 44 
Figure 44, Doma Gallery, Contrast of New and Old (Source: W Architecture) ........ 44 
Figure 46, Basilica Palladiana, Piazza dei Signori, Vicenza, Italy, 1546 - 1614 
(source: Giovanni Giaconi) ................................................................................. 46 
Figure 47, Basilica Palladiana, Flexible Bay (Source: Author) .................................. 47 
Figure 48, Basilica Palladiana Arcade (Source: Katty Piazza) ................................... 47 
Figure 49, National Gallery of Denmark, Parti Diagram, New meets Old (Source: 
Author) ................................................................................................................ 48 
Figure 50, National Gallery of Denmark. Interior Street (Source: Author) ................ 49 
Figure 51, Tempietto, Perspective and Plan (Source: Author) ................................... 50 
Figure 52, San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane, Two Readings (Source: Author) ............ 51 
Figure 53, San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane, Interior Dome (Source: Author) ............ 52 
Figure 54, Juxtaposition of New and Old (Source: Author) ....................................... 53 
 vi 
 
Figure 55, Paul and Lulu Hilliard University Art Museum (Source: 
Eskew+Dumez+Ripple) ...................................................................................... 53 
Figure 56, Program Type, Reviving the Ritual of Making (Source: Author) ............. 55 
Figure 57, Vision for Program (Source: Author) ........................................................ 56 
Figure 58, Building Dimensions and Major Spaces (Source: Author) ....................... 57 
Figure 59, Concept Sketch, Program Arrangement (Source: Author) ........................ 58 
Figure 60, HQ Raleigh, Program Arrangement (Source: Author) .............................. 60 
Figure 61, HQ, Open Collaboration Space (Source: HQ Raleigh) ............................. 60 
Figure 62, HQ, Co-Working Space (Source: HQ Raleigh) ........................................ 61 
Figure 63, HQ, Conference Room (Source: HQ Raleigh) .......................................... 61 
Figure 64, Torpedo Factory Arts Center, Program Arrangement (Source: Author) ... 62 
Figure 65, Naval Torpedo Station, Final Torpedo Made, 1945 (Source: 
Alexandria.gov) .................................................................................................. 62 
Figure 66, Torpedo Factory Arts Center, Interior Corridor (Source: 
visitalexandria.com) ............................................................................................ 62 
Figure 67, Aftermath of Explosion, Roombeek, 2003 (Source: visitenschede.nl) ..... 63 
Figure 68, Roombeek Culture Cluster, Axon Render (Source: seARCH) ................. 63 
Figure 71, Roombeek Culture Cluster, Program Arrangement (Source: Author) ...... 64 
Figure 69, Roombeek Culture Cluster, Weaving Structure (Source: seARCH) ......... 64 
Figure 70, Roombeek Culture Cluster, Metal Mesh Facade (Source: seARCH) ....... 64 
Figure 72, Process, Plan (Source: Author) .................................................................. 67 
Figure 73, Tractor Building, Asymmetrical Basilica (Source: Author) ...................... 68 
Figure 74, Tractor Building, South Façade (Source: Author) .................................... 68 
 vii 
 
Figure 75, Tractor Building, West Facade facing adjacent lot (Source: Author) ....... 69 
Figure 76, New Building Set-Back, Creating an Entry Plaza (Source: Author) ......... 70 
Figure 77, Process, Water Flow (Source: Author) ...................................................... 71 
Figure 78, Constructed Wetland, Water Flow (Source: Author) ................................ 71 
Figure 79, Pavilions in the Landscape, Allowing Natural Water Flow (Source: 
Author) ................................................................................................................ 72 
Figure 80, Delicate Connection, Rotation of Axis (Source: Author) ......................... 72 
Figure 81, Sequence, Arriving at the Tractor Building (Source: Author) .................. 73 
Figure 82, 20' Bay Module, Tractor Building (Source: Author) ................................ 74 
Figure 83, Tractor Building, Arched Windows and Monitor Skylights ..................... 74 
Figure 84, Workshops, Tractor Building (Source: Author) ........................................ 75 
Figure 85, Transverse Section, Workshops and Flexible Space (Source: Author) ..... 75 
Figure 86, Ground Floor Plan (Source: Author) ......................................................... 76 
Figure 87, Mezzanine Level of Tractor Building, 3rd Floor of New Buildings (Source: 
Author) ................................................................................................................ 76 
Figure 88, Entry Plaza (Source: Author) .................................................................... 77 
Figure 89, North Elevation, Tractor Building (Source: Author) ................................ 77 
Figure 90, Wetland Overlook (Source: Author) ......................................................... 78 
Figure 91, Wetland, Proportions and Organization (Source: Author) ........................ 78 
Figure 92, Gymnasium, The Communal Building (Source: Author) ......................... 79 
Figure 93, Section through Plaza and Communal Building (Source: Author) ........... 79 
Figure 92, Communal Building, Exploded Axon (Source: Author) ........................... 80 
Figure 95, Library, View Towards Bridge, Communal Building (Source: Author) ... 81 
 viii 
 
Figure 96, Library Connection to Bridge and Science Labs (Source: Author) .......... 81 
Figure 97, Section Perspective (Source: Author) ....................................................... 82 
Figure 98, Bridge (Source: Author) ............................................................................ 83 
Figure 99, Bridge Section Perspective (Source: Author) ............................................ 83 
Figure 100, Science Lab Classroom, Seated, Looking towards Tractor Building 
(Source: Author) ................................................................................................. 84 
Figure 101, Bridge & Science Labs, North Elevation (Source: Author) .................... 84 
Figure 102, Workspace, Tractor Building (Source: Author) ...................................... 85 
Figure 103, Feature Stair, Connecting Bridge to Tractor Building (Source: Author) 85 
Figure 102, Workshops, Classrooms, and Meeting Rooms (Source: Author) ............ 86 
Figure 105, Classrooms, Mezzanine Level of Tractor Building (Source: Author) .... 87 
Figure 106, Tractor Building Section through Workspace (Source: Author) ............. 87 
Figure 107, Workspace Section (Source: Author) ...................................................... 88 
Figure 108, Workspace, Tractor Building (Source: Author) ...................................... 89 
 
 
  
 1 
 
Chapter 1: Overview 
Organization 
 This thesis is organized in three major parts: the collection of information, the 
analysis of history and context, and the implementation of design.  First, information 
will be collected and documented to inform the design process.  Second, a set of 
problems will be identified as a result of the analysis.  Third, a strategy will be 
presented in the form of a design solution.  
 
Concepts  
 To construct an argument, we must first lay the groundwork on which this 
thesis will stand.  In this section, we will outline concepts from architects and authors 
to gain insight on issues related to this thesis through various lenses.  These concepts, 
simply put, are in reference to the birth of buildings, the death of buildings, and the 
revival of buildings. 
The first concept is one of structure, connections, and construction.  The term, 
“Open Building" coined by Sidney Magee, author of The Open System, offers a 
streamlined process for building.  The driving force behind this theory of openness is 
to invite the design of alternative components that abide by standard dimensions and 
connections to allow for accumulative additions and adaptation over the life of a 
building. There are 4 elements to an open building.  First, the building must be 
created using a basic structural Frame.  Second, a standard method of connection 
must be established.  Third, a “family” of components must be developed to infill the 
 2 
 
structure.  Fourth, those components must be made available to the open market, to 
allow for alternatives.1   
 We can reinterpret these four elements to apply to our project of revival.  
First, we draw design inspiration from the language of the existing structure.  Second, 
we identify the standard method of connection within the building to support that 
existing structure.  Third, the component of “infill” becomes the program, which will 
be inserted in the shell of the existing building to spur the revival of place in relation 
to this history of making.  Fourth, and finally, this idea of alternatives can play a role 
in the evolution of program over time to increase the overlap and interaction of 
disparate use-types. 
 Buildings are a symbol of growth, longevity and immortality.  However, 
buildings always outlive their original use; it collapses, erodes and decays.  Buildings 
are then also a symbol of the transience of all things.2  The next concept comes from 
the Douglas Murphy’s text, The Architecture of Failure.  This text poses a question 
about time and the role of use within a building.  There is an idea about creation and 
inevitable destruction. The main lesson from this text is acknowledging that the 
physical built form will outlast the use with that form. 
The next text, How Buildings Learn, speaks about this tension created 
between continually changing programmatic use and a buildings resistance to 
adaptation.  “The whole idea of architecture is permanence.  [This permanence] is an 
illusion.”3  So the question then becomes, how does design invite adaptation?  The 
                                                
1 Sidney Magee, The Open System, Eugene, Oregon, 2008, p. 5-8 
2 Douglas Murphy, The Architecture of Failure, London, England, 2012, p. 1-3 
3 Brand, How Buildings Learn, New York, New York, 1994, p. 2 
 3 
 
question is framed as follows:  Buildings are layered by different rates of change; 
adaptation is easiest in cheap buildings that are not loved by the masses; buildings are 
best refined in long-lasting sustained-purpose buildings; adaptation is anathema to 
architects; the real estate market severs continuity; with the past in mind, it is possible 
to rethink the approach to the future.4 
How does design honestly honor, and acknowledge, this passage of time and 
why are old buildings so well loved?  Brian Eno explains, “Humans have a taste for 
things that not only show that they have been through a process of evolution, but 
which also show they are still part of one.  They are not dead yet.”5  Humans can 
relate to these buildings because these buildings have stories that can relate to the 
complexity of the human condition.   
By understanding the former use of the building, we can better design for 
what it will be used for in a contemporary setting, and the possibilities the building 
holds for future use.  The use of a building is one of the most rapidly-changing 
“layers” of a building, while the building itself has longevity and its site is eternal.  
Designing for current use will need to consider this layer of site and celebrate the 
artifacts of its history. 
 The “layers” of the building are essential to the formation of our argument.  
The four layers of a building were first defined as: shell, services, scenery and set.  
Each layer has a different lifespan, which disrupts the system.  Robert V. O’Neill, 
                                                
4 Brand, How Buildings Learn, New York, New York, 1994, p. 17 
5 Brand, How Buildings Learn, p. 11 
 4 
 
author if A Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems, describes the challenges with these 
competing layers, “The dynamics of the system will be dominated by the slow 
components, with the rapid components simply following along.”.6  Brand then 
reinterprets the original four layers into his own six layers to include: site, structure, 
skin, services, space plan and stuff.  “What stays fixed in the drawings will stay fixed 
in the building over time.  The column grid will be the bottom layer.”, Duffy adds, 
“Don’t solve a five-minute problem with a fifty-year solution.”7  Coordinating the 
relationship between this various layers is the challenge of renovation and reviving 
old buildings to fit current needs and contemporary programs.   
 During the construction of a building, many of these layers begin to merge, 
making it difficult to detach them from one another when the components need to be 
updated, replaced or maintained.  “Embedding the systems together may look 
efficient at first, but over time it is the opposite, and destructive as well…an adaptive 
building must allow for slippage between differently-paced systems…otherwise the 
slow systems block the flow of the quick ones, and the quick ones tear up the slow 
ones with their constant change.”8  If we can design a holistic building with all the 
appropriate systems, but ‘disentangle’ these systems so they are easily accessible, 
upgradable and replaceable we can design a flexible building that invites adaptation. 
                                                
6 Stewart Brand, How Buildings Learn, New York, New York, 1994, p. 13 
7 Brand, How Buildings Learn, p. 17 
8 Brand, How Buildings Learn, p. 17 
 5 
 
Goals 
 This thesis seeks to create a learning center through an adaptive reuse of an 
existing building, with the potential for multiple intervention types.   
 These types include: inserting new program within the existing shell of the 
building; juxtaposing the existing building with new forms; and linking the old and 
the new through physical and visual connections. 
Through these interventions we aim to preserve the history of the building and 
enhance its sense of place in ways that remember what was there, while implementing 
forward-thinking program.  
 
 
 
 6 
 
Chapter 2: Site 
Site Selection 
 In the process of selecting a site, there were four criteria to satisfy.  First, a 
building or structure currently occupies the site.  Second, that built form will allow 
for an adaptive-reuse design proposal.  Third, the site permits the addition of new 
built forms.  And fourth, the site is situated in a location that can engage the local 
context. 
 This thesis will consider three sites in the Baltimore metropolitan area for 
further investigation.  Site A, the Tractor Building, is located at 2031 Clipper Park 
Road as part of the Poole and Hunt Foundry and Machine Works complex.  Site B, 
the Fells Point Recreation Pier, extends into the Baltimore Harbor at 1715 Thames 
Figure 1, Baltimore Metropolitan Area, Potential Sites (Source: Author) 
 7 
 
Street.  And Site C, Foundry Station, finds itself outside the city at 7101 Sollers Point 
Road in Dundalk, Baltimore County.   
 These locations have satisfied the criteria previously stated for site selection.  
These sites all have early 20th Century buildings occupying their respective sites and 
will allow for an adaptive reuse of their structural footprint.  In addition, these sites 
permit the addition of new built forms, whether they be expansions of existing 
structures or separate, stand-alone additions, and provide opportunities to better serve 
the surrounding context.  The objective of this section is to evaluate the various 
locations and identify a single site for further exploration.  
Site A_Tractor Building 
2031 Clipper Park Road, Baltimore, Maryland 
  
 Erecting Shop 2 (ca. 1916), known as the Tractor Building, is part of a 
complex of six existing fieldstone and brick buildings that were erected between 1856 
Figure 2, Site A: Tractor Building (Source: Author) 
 8 
 
and 1916, formally serving the Poole and Hunt Company.9   Each of these six 
buildings has received accumulative additions during its 80 years of industrial-era 
manufacturing.  The terminology and numbering system used in this document will 
reflect the classification of the National Register of Historic Places Inventory.  The 
six buildings and their construction dates are as follows: 
 
 
 Bldg. No. 08_Office (ca. 1905) 
 Bldg. No. 04_Blacksmith Shop [Artisan Building] (ca. 1856) 
 Bldg. No. 05_Foundry (ca. 1870) 
 Bldg. No. 03_Erecting Shop 1 [Assembly Building] (ca. 1890) 
 Bldg. No. 21_Erecting Shop 2 [Tractor Building] (ca. 1916) 
Bldg. No. 27_Wagon House [Stables Building] (ca. 1890) 
                                                
9 Cathrine F. Black, National Register of Historic Places Inventory, Baltimore, Maryland, 
1972, p. 4 
Figure 3, Poole and Hunt Company Building Complex (Source: Author) 
 9 
 
 The Poole and Hunt Foundry and Machine Works complex occupies a 17.4-
acre valley, situated between the northern edge of Druid Hill Park and the hills of the 
Woodberry neighborhood to the north.   
The buildings are arranged in two liner strips in the east-west direction and 
form a central corridor between the northern buildings and the southern buildings.  
The Office, Foundry, and Blacksmith Shop occupy the northern half of the site, while 
the Tractor Building, Assembly Building, and Wagon House occupy the southern half 
of the site.  The first structure built on site was the Machine Shop, completed in 1853, 
however a 1995 fire destroyed the shop and caused considerable damaged to the 
Assembly Building.  A new building now occupies the previous footprint of the 
destroyed Machine shop, while loft-style apartments inhabit the restored Assembly 
Building.  
Figure 4, Site A: Relationship to Surrounding Context 
 10 
 
Approximately 6 acres of the original 17.4 acres has since been allocated for low 
density housing to the northwest and south.  The land to the north and south of the 
site boundary is sloped a fair amount, however the site itself was graded at the time of 
construction to create a level building area. 
 
Figure 5, Site Boundary, Left:1916, Right:2016 (Source: NRHP and Author) 
Figure 6, Site Topography (Source: Author) 
 11 
 
 Along the eastern edge of the site are railroad tracks that run in the north-
south direction.  These tracks were previously used for industrial freight, with tracks 
running through the grounds of the site to haul both raw material and finished 
product, but have since been converted to a Light Rail line.10  Further to the east, 
running parallel to the rail line, is the Jones Falls Expressway. 
The partnership between Poole and Hunt succeeded Poole and Ferguson, 
which was founded in 1843 in downtown Baltimore, and was an international leader 
in the production of heavy machinery.  Poole & Hunt began as specialists in 
                                                
10 Cathrine F. Black, National Register of Historic Places Inventory, Baltimore, Maryland, 
1972, p. 2 
Figure 7, Site Access (Source: Author) 
 12 
 
manufacturing transmission machinery, however they would also become known for 
their custom work.11 
 While the production of standardized products allowed for the company’s 
initial success, it was the custom casting of the world’s largest sand wheel that 
powered the Assembly Building, measuring 65 feet in diameter and weighing 500 
tons, that drew international attention to the Baltimore manufacturer.  This success 
was documented in foreign and domestic technical and scientific journals and would 
lead to high-profile commissions for the company, including the 36 iron columns that 
support the dome of the US Capitol.12 
 As the company grew, so did the buildings.  Between the years of 1856 and 
1916, there were 21 unique instances of additions, alterations or modifications to the 
structures.  Descriptions of the main buildings, as well as their additions, will be 
provided below.  The order will follow the same sequence as above; beginning from 
                                                
11 Cathrine F. Black, National Register of Historic Places Inventory, Baltimore, Maryland, 
1972, p. 4 
12 Black, National Register of Historic Places Inventory, p. 4 
Figure 8, Left: Foundry Yard looking West, Right: Sand Wheel, Erecting Shop 1 (Source: National Register of 
Historic Places) 
 13 
 
the northern ‘strip’ of buildings from east to west, then the southern buildings from 
east to west.   
 
 
Bldg. No. 08_Office (ca. 1905) 
 The Office is on the northeastern 
corner of the complex.  It’s a three-story 
building, measures 60 feet on each side and 
is composed of 9 interior bays with a hipped 
roof.  It’s constructed of primarily of brick, 
with an exposed brownstone base.13  The 
Office was the former ‘gateway’ to the 
building complex, and while the interior has seen massive renovations, the exterior 
                                                
13 Cathrine F. Black, National Register of Historic Places Inventory, Baltimore, Maryland, 
1972, p. 2 
 
Figure 9, Building Additions Over Time (Source: Author) 
Figure 10, Office, 2003 (Source: Betty Bird + 
Associates) 
 14 
 
remains unaltered.  The building is currently occupied by Urbanite, a local media 
outlet. 
 
Bldg. No. 04_Blacksmith Shop [Artisan Building] (ca. 1856) 
 The Blacksmith Shop, or Artisan Building, is the oldest surviving building in 
the Poole and Hunt complex.  This building has a rectangular footprint with a gable 
roof directly to the west of the Office.  It stands 7 bays long by one story high and 
measures 180’ x 50’.  Over the course of 100 years, the Blacksmith Shop underwent 
five different additions:   
 No. 04 Addition (ca. 1856) is a 
single story, square footprint building 
with a monitor roof.  Built with stone 
construction, this addition extends to 
the west from the Blacksmith Shop.  
Future additions, 04.B and 04.C, 
extend from this addition.  No. 04.A 
(ca. 1913) is a single story, rectangular 
footprint building with a gable roof 
with the short ends of the building 
extending above the pitch line.  This is 
a brick building located on the north 
facade of the Blacksmith Shop.  No. 
04.B (ca. 1917) and No. 04.C (ca. 
1916) are brick additions with a 
rectangular footprint and shed roofs that continue the roof line the No. 04 Addition. 
These additions are mirrors of each other and extend to the north and south, on either 
side of the No. 04 Addition.  The final addition, No. 04.F (ca. 1956), is the only two-
story addition to this building and is made of CMU block with a brick facade on the 
east side.  This building was constructed after the “period of significance” for this 
Figure 11, Southeast of Blacksmith Shop, 2003 
(Source: Betty Bird + Associates) 
 15 
 
complex and is one of the few buildings on the site that is not part of the National 
Register of Historic Places.14 
 The interior has been converted to suite style office spaces and is currently 
occupied by two law firms, the American Diabetes Association, a food-service 
facility, and an ecosystem investment firm.  As of fall 2016, the Artisan Building has 
15,369 square feet of space available for lease across three suites. 
 
Bldg. No. 05_Foundry (ca. 1870) 
 The Foundry is a fieldstone 
and wood building with a 
rectangular footprint measuring 232’ 
x 84’.  The building is one story 
high, however it is a tall single story 
with its wood-structure monitor roof 
exposed to the interior below.  The 
interior has an open floor plan with 
columns dispersed throughout and 
clerestory windows on the north and east facades.  The large central bay allowed for 
the smelting and casting of iron and steel.  This building has seen the most renovation 
out of the original six buildings in the complex with 9 additions between 1870 and 
1890, and a single addition in 1952.15  While these additions are noteworthy for their 
abundance and symbol of rapid growth and expansion, they are architecturally 
common.  These expansions were purely utilitarian, typically used for the storage of 
large mechanical equipment and raw material.  All additions to the Foundry were one 
story in height and built of brick, with the exception of building No. 15 which was 
constructed out of stone.  These additions would eventually surround the Foundry on 
all sides but the southeast corner. 
                                                
14 Cathrine F. Black, National Register of Historic Places Inventory, Baltimore, Maryland, 
1972, p. 2-3 
15 Black, National Register of Historic Places Inventory, p. 3-4 
 
Figure 12, Interior View East of Foundry, 2003 (Source: Betty 
Bird + Associates) 
 16 
 
 Today, the 50,000 sqft space is used by a wide range of creative professionals 
and crafts persons including architects, sculptors, jewelry makers, and chefs.  The 
flexibility of the floor plan is ideal for imaginative and collaborative work like 
metalworking, glassblowing, cabinet working, pottery and several other small scale 
artisans. 
 
Bldg. No. 03_Erecting Shop 1 [Assembly Building] (ca. 1890) 
 The Assembly Building is one of two erecting shops on the site.  The building 
has a rectangular footprint, measuring 215’ x 108’, and is capped with a monitor roof 
that allowed for the assembly of large machinery.16  A sally port, or secure gate way, 
filled the gap between the Assembly Building and the Foundry to the north.  Today, 
that portal remains open and allows for pedestrian and vehicular traffic to move freely 
in the east-west direction along Clipper Park Road. 
 This building is one of two in the complex that were affected by a massive 
1995 fire that destroyed the Machine Shop and heavily damaged the Assembly 
Building.  The Assembly Building had only one addition to its original form, and 
served to physically join the Assembly Building to the adjacent Machine Shop, and 
remains of this addition are still visible.  The brick and fieldstone facade, as well as 
                                                
16 Cathrine F. Black, National Register of Historic Places Inventory, Baltimore, Maryland, 
1972, p. 4-5 
 
Figure 13, Erecting Shop 1 Interior 1980 (Source: 
Betty Bird + Associates) 
Figure 14, Erecting Shop 1 After Fire (Source: Cho 
Benn Holback + Associates) 
 17 
 
the steel trusses that supported the roof survived the fire, however the roof itself was 
destroyed.  
 Since, the Assembly Building has been converted to loft-style apartment units 
and is the focal point of the modern-day complex.  The large central bay that was 
previously used for house and build large machinery is now used for vertical 
circulation to allow access to the apartments.  On the upper floors this zone opens to 
the sky and yellow crane spans the width of the truss system in the east-west 
direction.  The steel trusses are left exposed as they were after the fire and the 
remains of the addition now frame an outdoor pool at the base of the building.  
 
Bldg. No. 21_Erecting Shop 2 [Tractor Building] (ca. 1916) 
The Erecting Shop 2, or Tractor Building, is physically attached to Erecting 
Shop 1 and is joined in a ’T’ shape, with the short end of the Tractor Building 
meeting the long side of the Assembly Building.  The building has a rectangular 
footprint, measuring 108’ x 282’, and stands two stories tall will a large central bay.  
Figure 15, Left: Erecting Shop 1 East Facade, 2016 Right: Raised Interior Court (Source: Thornhill Properties) 
 18 
 
The building’s traditional gable roof is interrupted by 7 rectangular monitors that run 
in the north-south direction.  
The three exposed facades 
(north, east, and south) 
feature multi-story arched 
windows, however a portion 
of the south facade has been 
covered by addition No. 21.A 
(ca. 1916); a one story 
concrete structure with a flat 
roof.  The north facade was 
also covered at one time by addition No. 21.B (ca. 1935) but has since been 
removed.17  The remnants of the addition can still be seen in the north facade where 
the steel structure intersected the brick. The Tractor Building is currently being used 
as parking for the residents and patrons of the various local businesses in the 
complex. 
 
 
                                                
17 Cathrine F. Black, National Register of Historic Places Inventory, Baltimore, Maryland, 
1972, p. 5 
 
Figure 16, Tractor Building Interior, 2016 (Source: Thornhill 
Properties) 
Figure 17, Erecting Shop 2, Original North Facade Building 21, 2011 
(Source: Acroterion) 
Figure 18, Erecting Shop 2, North 
Facade Building 21.B, 2003 
(Source: Betty Bird + Associates) 
 19 
 
Bldg. No. 27_Wagon House [Stables Building] (ca. 1890) 
 The Wagon House is a two-
story building with a square footprint 
and a cross-gable hipped slate roof.  
The Wagon House is the only building 
in the complex that is built using 
fieldstone construction for the entire 
structure.  The facade of the building is 
visible on three sides, the east, north and south, and an addition is extended from the 
south elevation of the original.  This addition, No. 28 (ca. 1890), is a one story stone 
building that is rectangular in shape and was previously used, as the name implies, for 
the storage of horses and wagons.18   Today, the 7,500 square foot building is 
occupied by an ecological restoration firm, Biohabitats. 
                                                
18 Cathrine F. Black, National Register of Historic Places Inventory, Baltimore, Maryland, 
1972, p. 5 
 
Figure 19, Wagon House, East Facade, 2003 (Source: 
Betty Bird + Associates) 
 20 
 
 
 Site A provides opportunities for a design proposal at various scales.  The 
northwest and southwest corners of the site currently have low density housing and 
could allow the scope of this project to grow and incorporate neighborhood building 
and strengthening development in the area.  The site’s proximity to the Woodberry 
Light Rail reinforces this idea, however the JFX isolates the area and poses some 
problems related to connectivity and continuity.  
  Additionally, the sharply sloped south end of the site is currently occupied by 
a townhouse development.  There may be ways to extend the footprint of the existing 
building to provide program that connects to Druid Hill Park and add some sectional 
interest to the project.  Growth could also occur towards the west to continue the 
original corridor that was created between the northern and southern strips of 
Figure 20, Area of Site for Potential New Development, Highlighted in Blue.  Boundary and Center, Indicated by 
Dashed Line (Source: Author) 
 21 
 
building.  A 100’ x 100’ parking lot separates the Tractor Building from the Stables 
Building and could allow for continuity of the street edge along Clipper Park Road.  
 Site A also contributes ideologically to the narrative of this thesis.  During the 
life of the Poole and Hunt complex, all the buildings on the site have undergone 
extensive expansion and manipulation as needed.  Over time, building users 
demanded more out of their buildings and modified and adapted the physical form to 
serve the current context.  The design proposal that follows will continue this theme 
by preserving the physical form but adapting its programmatic use, and possibly 
present a solution that will invite future change.     
 
Site B_Fells Point Recreation Pier 
715 Thames Street, Baltimore, Maryland 
  
Figure 21, Site B: Fells Point Recreation Pier (Source: Author) 
 22 
 
 The Recreation Pier is located off the west channel of the Patapsco River on 
the Baltimore Harbor.  It is a singular pier positioned at the center of the Fells Point 
waterfront and is composed primarily of two elements.   The first element is the 
Facade Building.  This building is three story brick structure characterized by its 
classical granite and limestone ornamentation and its grand entrance arch that permits 
access from Thames Street to the second element; the pier beyond.   
Behind the facade building is a two story, warehouse-type, steel structure with 
an expansive flat roof.  It was originally coined the “Broadway Pier” by Mayor James 
Preston at the opening in 1914 to a crowd of twenty-thousand.  They had gathered to 
celebrate the completion of this $1 Million project that offered both commercial and 
recreational purposes.19  While its current name would imply an emphasis on 
amusement, the recreation aspect is secondary to the commercial.  The Facade 
Building housed all commercial program, which included a spacious entry, office 
space, and a large assembly hall (now converted), while the recreation element is 
                                                
19 Tartar Rosenthal/Apollo (Firm), Fells Point Recreation Pier Reuse, Baltimore, Maryland, 
1980, p. 9 
Figure 22, Left: North Elevation of Facade Building, Right: View of Pier to the South (Source CharmCity1) 
 23 
 
characterized by its large, interior central bay with a large flat roof used for various 
activities. 
 The Facade Building had several tenants, including the Chesapeake Maritime 
Exchange, the Maryland Port Authority, and the Department of Recreation and Parks.  
The Chesapeake Maritime Exchange is a radio network that occupies part of the first 
floor and mezzanine of the Facade Building and broadcasts to the ships arriving at the 
Port of Baltimore.  The Maryland Port Authority occupied the space opposite the 
Chesapeake Maritime Exchange, across the main entrance arch, on the ground floor.  
While the entrance portal is an attractive feature from the street, the “exterior ground 
floor behind the arch is more cavernous than uninviting, and is used for driveway 
Figure 23, Recreation Pier, Ground Floor Plan (Source: Tartar Rosenthal/Apollo) 
 24 
 
access to the loft building beyond.”20  The entire upper floor, and the outdoor roof 
deck, was used by the Department of Recreation and Parks.  A basketball court 
occupied the space that used to be a grand ballroom, while offices and activity rooms 
are were scattered around the perimeter.  
 Over the years, the Recreation Pier has become a place of public engagement 
only in name.  The roof overlooking the Baltimore Harbor, where people used to 
come to “dance and stroll on the deck on warm summer evenings…has [since] lost 
some of its charm.”21. The roof had become covered in black tar and the spacious 
                                                
20 Tartar Rosenthal/Apollo (Firm), Fells Point Recreation Pier Reuse, Baltimore, Maryland, 
1980, p. 12 
21 Tartar Rosenthal/Apollo (Firm), Fells Point Recreation Pier Reuse, p. 14 
Figure 24,Recreation Pier, Upper Level Plan (Source: Tartar Rosenthal/Apollo) 
 25 
 
interior below became a tow yard, used for parking and storage as well as some 
make-shift mechanical shops and offices.   
 Only one tenant, the towing company, had a formal lease on the space, while 
various others, including crane operators, ship chandlers, and tugboat companies 
utilize the space for storage of large items and 24-hour access to the pier.  Tugboats 
dock on the pier for loading, while trucks use the large, central arch of the Facade 
Building for deliveries and repairs.  
Currently Sagamore Development Co., owned by Kevin Plank, the founder of 
Baltimore-based Under Amour, is developing the site into a 128-room hotel deemed 
Sagamore Pandry Baltimore.  The hotel, which will cost $60 million, will feature 
several restaurants, a whisky bar, a rooftop deck and pool, as well as over 10,000 
square feet of meeting and event space.  Notably, the grand ballroom will be 
reclaimed from its use as a basketball court and restored to its original form.    
 The design proposal for the Recreation Pier would reimagine this 
development, and for this reason, Site B poses some challenges.  The positioning of 
Figure 25, View on Pier Towards the South (Source: Jaclyn Borowski) 
 26 
 
the side on the waterfront, isolated on either side, also poses questions about how this 
building can be integrated back into the Fells Point area as well as issues of public 
access.  One thought is to utilize the strong axis that begins from the Facade Building 
arch and continues through the ground floor and terminates at the water’s edge at the 
end of the pier.  
 
Site C_Foundry Station  
7101 Sollers Point Road, Dundalk, Maryland 
Twelve years after the 18th Amendment had been repealed, two alcohol 
distilleries were built in close proximity to one another in Dundalk, Maryland.  One is 
characterized by its four cubic volumes that line Willow Spring Road, and the other is 
recognized for its tall smoke stack and water tower on Sollers Point Road.  This 
distillery, known as Foundry Station is a complex of 7 abandoned buildings that 
Figure 26, Site C: Foundry Station (Source: Author) 
 27 
 
formally produced alcohol for Baltimore Pure Rye in the early 20th century.  The 
structures were erected in 1933 and functioned as a distillery until 1992, however the  
property changed hands in 1957 when Baltimore Pure Rye sold the facility to Joseph 
E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.  In 1994, Seagram sold the lot to Brewery Station Inc., a 
company that then “leased portions of the property to various tenants including 
contractors, a welder, print shop, a lawn care company and a furnisher refinisher.”22. 
This operation lasted until 2008 when the property was sold to its current owner, VO, 
LLC., The property remains vacant and in poor condition today.  
 The site lays to the east of Baltimore City in Baltimore County, situated 
between two Baltimore harbor inlets; Colgate Creek to the west and Lynch Cove to 
the east.   
                                                
22 Maryland Department of the Environment, Facts About: Former Seagram Property, 
Baltimore, Maryland, 2012, p. 1 
Figure 27, Foundry Station 7-Building Complex, Naming Conventions and Dimensions (Source: Author) 
 28 
 
The larger surrounding context is divided into three main sections; low 
density residential housing to the northwest, institutional education buildings to the  
northeast, and a historical district to the south. 
 
 The immediate context is bordered by low-density, single family detached 
housing to the west and south.  The north is lined by a two-lane road and the east is 
softly defined by trees with a small church occupying a small patch of land between 
the site and an open field park. 
 The site itself lays relatively flat with a minor grade change sloping 10 feet 
from north to south.  Just across the street, at the high school and community college, 
the elevation jumps 40 feet where the institutional buildings are situated on a high 
plateau overlooking the site.  To the south, across the rail line, is a series of slowly 
terraced, semicircular-shaped parcels that conform to the radial street gird.  The 
lowest point in the immediate area is the site of the other alcohol distillery on Willow 
Spring Road. 
 The buildings on the site, numbered 1 through 7, are arranged along two main 
axes.  The numbering system begins at number 1 in the southern corner of the site and 
moves clockwise throughout the complex. Descriptions and photos of all buildings to 
follow. 
Figure 28, Major Elements of Surrounding Context (Source: Author) 
 29 
 
Building 1 is located in the southern corner of the site, thin in depth, 
measuring 90’, but stretching 228’ in length along its north elevation.  The façade of 
the building is not continuous and gradually steps back its footprint, with its most 
prominent corner to the east in elevation and its most discrete to the west, receding to 
the south.  The depth of this building lends itself to the dimensions of an office 
building, with lines of divisions running from north to south that creates a segmented 
program from east to west.  The area of this building is in the range of 25-35,000 sqft 
and would be best suited for an intervention within the existing shell and an addition 
that extends to the north. 
 
Building 2A sits to the west of Building 1, with a space of about 120’ between 
the two.  Previously, this space was occupied by a building that shared a wall with 
Building 2A, however it was destroyed by a fire in 2003, leaving on a pile of charred 
wood, broken bricks, and a steel structure that remains attached to building 2A.23  the 
building itself is narrow and tall with a simple pitch-roof and several punched-
                                                
23 Maryland Department of the Environment, Facts About: Former Seagram Property, 
Baltimore, Maryland, 2012, p. 1 
 
Figure 29,Building 1 (Source: Author) 
 30 
 
opening windows scattered throughout the north and west elevations.  The building 
measures 48’ on its short, north elevation and runs 108’ back in depth.  This slender, 
but heighted space might lend itself to formal entry to the attached building, 2B to the 
east.  
 
Building 2B is connected to the east side of Building 2A, measuring 78’ on its 
connected side and 90’ in the direction that faces towards the center of the site.  The 
interior is single-heighted with a pitched roof running parallel to its long dimension, 
with a monitor skylight at the center-line.  There tall, slender windows on the north 
and west facades, with solid brick walls on the south and east walls.  Because of the 
proximity of Buildings 2A, 2B, and 3 they would most likely contain a series of 
Figure 30, Building 2A (Source: Author) 
Figure 31, Building 2B, (Source: J David Photography) 
 31 
 
related program.  Possible program includes a library, maker-space and museum 
related to the history of the site. 
Building 3 is similar in size and orientation to Building 2B with its long 
dimension measuring 90’ and facing the interior of the site.  However, unlike 
Building 2B, Building 3 is smaller in depth at 68’ and steps back from the main 
corridor. The interior space is singular, with an exposed, pitched-roof ceiling.  A 
mezzanine level exists along the south side of the building, with the majority of the 
ground-level space oriented towards the north.  The north façade is organized by 8 
punched-opening windows, while the short elevations share a similar style to 
Building 2B with tall, slender windows that span the height of the façade. 
Building 4 sits in the northern and most isolated of the buildings in the 
complex, located in the northwest corner of the site.  The building measures 80’ by 
100’ and is a single story tall with clearstory, strip windows.  Currently, the building 
Figure 32, Building 3 (Source: Author & J David Photography) 
 32 
 
is surrounded with overgrown vegetation, on the verge of becoming completely 
engulfed.  The location of the building on the site and its adjacency to the largest area 
of open land lends itself to program related to facilities management.  Alternatively, if 
needed, this building could serve a support role if a recreation-based program was 
introduced to the adjacent land (i.e., locker-room for an outdoor pool). 
Building 5 is the first of two buildings of the same size and type.  Building 5 
and 6 were previously used to store large barrels of alcohol during the complex’s life 
as a whiskey distillery.  Building 5 has a rectangular footprint, measuring 138” by 82” 
with 5 rows of punched-opening windows on both long facades, while a single strip 
of windows of the same run from the height of the short facades along its center.  The 
interior is a single space infilled with a wooden structure.   
Figure 33, Building 4 (Source: Author) 
Figure 34, Building 5 (Source: Author) 
 33 
 
Building 6 is adjacent to Building 5 and is similar in size and interior space.  
Building 6 is slightly smaller than Building 5, measuring 118’ 80’, but shares the 
same wooden framework interior.  Both buildings are larger than what is typical for 
residential, however, if the design were to keep some of this wooden structure in tact 
in a multistory, central atrium space, dimensions would be appropriate for units on 
the perimeter. 
Building 7 is a single-story structure with a pitched roof, masked by a stepped, 
rectilinear parapet.  The building measures 92’ by 68’ with an interior space that is 
full-heighted, but segmented by walls that run uninterrupted from floor to ceiling.  
The building’s position is closest to the entry from the street-side of the site and 
would serve as an appropriate ‘gateway’ to the complex. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 35, Building 6 (Source: Author) 
Figure 36, Building 7 (Source: Author & J David Photography) 
 34 
 
 
The 7 buildings collectively form an interior corridor that creates the major 
axis of a cross-axis that organizes the site.  The secondary axis is formed 
perpendicular to the first, running from the gated entry at the street side to the tree-
lined boundary between the site and the railway on the south.  The space that is not 
occupied by any of these 7 buildings, highlighted in blue in figure 37, offers the 
opportunity of new construction and development along the Sollers Point Road. 
The final and most iconic elements of the Foundry Station complex, are the 
smokestack and water tower situated along the southern edge of the site.  These 
elements can be seen towering over the rest of the buildings on the site and have 
remained a dominant visual feature throughout the life of the complex.  Both the 
smoke stack and the water tower must stay intact and play a role in the design 
proposal. 
Figure 37, Axial Organization and Potential Areas of Development, Highlighted in Blue (Source: Author) 
 35 
 
Challenges & Opportunities  
“Site planning is more than a practical art, however complex its technical apparatus.  
Its aim is moral and esthetic: to make places which enhance everyday life — which 
liberate their inhabitants and give them a sense of the world they live in.”24 
      - Kevin Lynch  
In this section, we will examine both the challenges and opportunities that 
come with each site.  This analysis will allow us to select the site that aligns with the 
                                                
24 Kevin Lynch and Gary Hack, Site Planning, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1984. 
Figure 38, Smokestack and Water Tower (Source: Author) 
Figure 39, Site Selection Matrix (Source: Author) 
 36 
 
values and goals of this thesis.  The site selection matrix shown in figure 39, is a 
simplification of criteria used to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each 
location.  The buildings were all selected based on their potential for an adaptive 
reuse design proposal, therefore they all have advantages unique to the buildings 
character and style.   
Next, the characteristics of the site itself, access to the site, and amenities 
surrounding the site were taken into consideration.  Site ‘C’ is located in a suburban 
context and scores low marks for this remote location, restricted access, and limited 
amenities.  The site is too diffuse, and does not have the density to properly serve the 
program this thesis seeks to propose.  Additionally, the lack of public transit to the 
site limits our audience and impact on the larger community.  The final criteria, 
history of site, is the distilling of alcohol.  This theme has its limits in the ways we 
can revive history of place while also making it welcoming and inclusive to all. 
Site ‘B’, located in Fells Point along Baltimore’s Inner Harbor, receives high 
marks for its ease of access and its local amenities.  However, the nature of the site – 
located on a pier – restricts the site boundary, where the site boundary and the 
building boundary become synonymous.  And while the building’s original use 
included themes of recreation and activity, its contemporary use – until its recent 
renovation - has been demoted to that of junk-yard.  Currently, this site is nearing 
completion as a hotel, financed by the Baltimore-based Under Amour; an element of 
this site that is intellectually restricting in this academic exercise. 
Lastly, Site ‘A’ receives the same amount of high and low marks as Site ‘B’, 
however the advantages that we gain in the site’s character greatly outweigh the 
 37 
 
issues of access.  The site itself is occupied by the 6 buildings that once served the 
Poole & Hunt Foundry and Machine Works company, where the building in question, 
the Tractor Building, provides us with the exciting opportunity to design the last 
remaining historical structure that has not been renovated for contemporary use.  The 
surrounding buildings have been updated to serve modern needs and offers excellent 
amenities in the form of housing, restaurants, office space, and more.  Additionally, 
the issues of access that is created in the east-west direction is ameliorated by the 
light rail that runs every 10 minutes and is within a short walking distance to the site.  
Finally, the strong history of manufacturing within the building and on the site 
within the industrial city of Baltimore offers a greater opportunity to revive its legacy 
than the other sites.  Therefore, Site ‘A’ will be selected for further exploration in this 
thesis. 
In the next section we will explore formal intervention precedents as they 
relate to elements of adaptation, expansion, and tension to better inform our design 
approach. 
 
 
 
 
 38 
 
Chapter 3: Precedent 
Setting the Stage 
 “An old building is not an obstacle but rather a foundation for continued 
action.”25  The precedents examined in this chapter will focus first on the strategies of 
reconstruction, restoration and preservation, then, on how these strategies may be 
applied to this thesis.  These precedents will be defined by typology, which are 
characterized by how an architectural intervention relates to the existing context.  By 
examining the methods in which obsolete building are made whole again, we can 
better understand the various alternatives and apply these techniques as appropriate.  
 As a result of our analysis, we can identify three areas of the site that will 
allow for development; the Tractor Building itself (Bldg. No. 21), the addition and 
surrounding area to the south (Bldg. No. 21.A), and the 100’ x 100’ open lot directly 
                                                
25 Francoise Astorg Bollack, Old Buildings New Forms, New York, New York, 2013, p. 8 
Figure 40, Locating Potential for Interventions (Source: Author) 
 39 
 
to the building’s west.  Therefore, the projects examined in this section will 
demonstrate strategies that address themes of “insertions,” “additions,” and 
“juxtapositions.”   
 The main structure, the Tractor Building (Bldg. No. 21) is best suited for an 
“inserting.”  This type of intervention is characterized by its “parasitic” quality, where 
the new construction is developed within the shell of the existing building.  The bulk 
of the space on the site is defined by the building shell, therefor the majority of the 
program will be of this type.   
 The 1916 building to the south, Bldg. No. 21.A, is a short and slender addition 
to the main building.  Its position on the building lends itself to the “addition” 
strategy of intervention to bring function to the rear of the building, as well as engage 
with the surrounding natural context.  The program in this zone will relate to a more 
intimate scale and address the character of Druid Hill Park to the south. 
 The 100’ x 100’ open lot to the west of the Tractor Building is an opportunity 
to engage the streetscape and reveal contemporary elements of the design.  In this 
area, the strategy of “juxtaposing” will be implemented to contrast the old and new 
while bringing program to the street edge. 
 These precedents will provide insights into the art of intervention and, will 
collectively, form the basis for design.  The intent of this investigation is to yield 
functionally useful and aesthetically beautiful qualities that will inform our design in 
concept and principal.  The connection between new and old is not only present in the 
physical interaction of material, but also in the theory of renovation and reuse itself.  
Therefore, this precedent analysis will document both contemporary and historical 
 40 
 
examples to explore current trends while contextualizing the concepts’ deep roots in 
architectural practice. 
Intervention Types 
In this section, we will clarify the three types of interventions and expand on 
the strategies that make these techniques successful.  These strategies address how we 
can revive the value of neglected and abandoned buildings by preserving character 
and elevating function.  The love we have for old buildings stems from their ability to 
offer a physical embodiment of time and memory.  While the memories held may not 
be of our own, they belong to the human collective.  These buildings are a symbol of 
the endurance and inevitably of time, but also give recognition to the present moment, 
our lessons learned from the past, and our journey towards what is next. 
 
Insertions  
In this type of intervention, the new building is inserted, and occupies, the 
interior of the old building.  Like a hand in a glove, the function of the exterior is 
dependent on the insertion itself.  Likewise, the hand’s usefulness is elevated by the 
function of the exterior.  In this relationship, both the new and the old, the hand and 
the glove, are dependent on the other and are both made stronger by their bond.   
The new addition, or insertion, typically has a character that is distinct from 
that of the existing building.  The existing building is often a vernacular structure that 
has a material palette, style, and history that is tied to its place.  This is an important 
aspect of this type of intervention, since the objective is not to replicate, or to 
 41 
 
compete with, what is already there.  Rather, the new building should complement the 
old in ways that enhance both the experience and the function of the collective whole. 
This strategy, which aims to give new life to a building, while preserving the 
character and charm that makes old buildings so lovable, has deep roots in 
architectural practice.  In 1559, when the Medici had outgrown their space in the 
Palazzo Vecchio they sought the expertise of Giorgio Vasari; the designer of the 
Uffizi in Florence.26  The solution was not to build a new building with new function, 
but to outfit the existing city fabric to meet growing space requirements.  With the 
insertion of this U-shaped intervention into the city’s fabric, Vasari had added value 
and function to the space in ways that are still enjoyed today.  
                                                
26 Francoise Astorg Bollack, Old Buildings New Forms, New York, New York, 2013, p. 23 
 
Figure 41, The Uffizi, Florence, Italy (Source: Apple Maps) 
 42 
 
In addition to providing the Medici with the office space they required, the 
Uffizi formed a new public space; a thin, rectangular corridor that extends from the 
Piazza della Signoria on the north to the bank of the Arno on the south.  In contrast to 
the adjacent Palazzo Vecchio that forms an edge of the piazza to the north, the Ufizzi 
is intended to remain integrated into its surroundings; its only exposed facades turned 
inward and its internal boundary without clear definition.  The exterior is formal, 
clear and unified, while the interior boundary is varied, allowing the form to be 
absorbed and incased by the city block.  “The building is a ‘liner’ fitted in the old coat 
that is the city around it, they are interdependent and thoroughly meshed.”27  Once 
again, the value of each element based on the relationship of the parts to the whole, in 
that one cannot exist without the other. 
                                                
27 Francoise Astorg Bollack, Old Buildings New Forms, New York, New York, 2013, p. 23 
Figure 42, Palazzo Vecchio, Galleria degli Uffizi, Piano Nobile 
(Source: Michael Dennis & Associates) 
 43 
 
The Uffizi is a historical example of “insertion” on the scale of the city that 
carves out a rectangular form within several blocks to create public space, provide 
needed program, and allow access from the piazza to the waterfront.  While the style 
and scope of the Uffizi differ from that of this thesis, we can approach the design 
process using similar strategies to create useful, valuable, and beautiful places.  We 
can find balance in our design by drawing parallels between methods used in a 
historical context and contemporary architectural technologies and techniques.   
A more contemporary example of an intervention that inserts new 
construction into the shell of an existing structure can be found closer to home, in 
Baltimore County, Maryland.  The Doma Gallery, designed by W Architecture and 
Landscape Architecture in 2004, is a residence and art gallery built on the interior of a 
dilapidated barn.28  The concept of this project, a pristine glass box slipped in 
between the wooden barn structure, is simple and clearly read.  However, the roads 
that led to this design resolution were long and winding.  Exposure to natural 
                                                
28 Francoise Astorg Bollack, Old Buildings New Forms, New York, New York, 2013, p. 46 
 
Figure 43, Doma Gallery Concept Diagrams (Source: Author) 
 44 
 
elements and the passage of time cannot be authentically manufactured, making this 
design distinctive in that it put these elements on display.  This glass box, on its own, 
would not receive the same recognition without the barn enclosure.  Likewise, the 
barn would remain forgotten and unused without this simple, yet effective, design 
solution.    
In many ways, the barn 
has been given new life.  With the 
introduction of new program, new 
purpose has been granted to the 
old building and the surrounding 
landscape.  The barn also has new 
life in terms of its aesthetic 
beauty.  The rugged wooded slats 
contrast with the cold, clean and 
machined metal structure of the new building, allowing light to beam through the 
Figure 45, Doma Gallery, Contrast of New and Old (Source: W Architecture) 
Figure 44, Doma Gallery, Glass Box in Wooden Enclosure 
(Source: W Architecture) 
 45 
 
knots and cracks of the weathered façade.  The façade will continue to weather and 
change as time passes, adding a dynamism to the building that would otherwise be 
missed.  Layers of separation are realized in the space between old and new, forming 
interstitial space that is neither completely new or decidedly old, placing the user at 
the cross section of a material and architectural timeline.   
The barns exterior, contrasted to the contemporary interior, is an 
acknowledgment of both the character of the place and the requirements of our time.  
A wholly new structure cannot achieve the same type of authenticity, character and 
charm that is created when two contrasting, yet complementary, elements converge to 
form something unique together.  
 
Additions 
In this type of intervention, the new building provides a new skin, or 
enclosure, for the existing building.  With this type, the balance between old and new 
must be carefully considered as to not rob the original building of its initial function: 
to shelter from the elements.  If the addition becomes all-encompassing, the existing 
building becomes purely ornamental in nature.  Rather, the addition should serve as a 
means to enhance what exists and provide new functions that would otherwise be 
impossible in the older building alone.  Older buildings tend to have smaller room 
sizes, thicker wall sections, and poorer environmental controls which creates 
challenges for adaptive-reuse interventions.   
These additions address the ways in which we can improve various challenges 
of using old buildings for contemporary uses.  Additions can be expansions or 
 46 
 
extrusions of what exists; they can be parasitic in nature, imposing their will on the 
‘host’; or they can surround the old building, wrapping it in the comforts of 
modernity. 
The most well-known and well-loved of the addition type is the Basilica 
Palladiana, of the ‘wrap’ classification, located in Vicenza, Italy.  Known as the 
Palazzo della Ragione before the intervention, it was home to Vicenza’s courts which 
occupied the large interior hall on the second floor and was in the gothic style.  In 
1494, a colonnade designed by Tommaso Formenton was constructed around the 
perimeter.  However, shortly after completion in 1496 the south-west corner 
collapsed, and for fifty years it remained in ruin.  In 1546, a council of citizens 
approved a design by local architect, Andrea Palladio, and in 1549 construction 
began.29  It was not until 1614, thirty years after the death of Palladio, that this 
                                                
29 Francoise Astorg Bollack, Old Buildings New Forms, New York, New York, 2013, p. 113 
Figure 46, Basilica Palladiana, Piazza dei Signori, Vicenza, Italy, 1546 - 1614 (source: Giovanni Giaconi) 
 47 
 
addition was complete and transformed the irregular, dark-brick building into a 
regimented, white-marble icon of the renaissance.  
Palladio’s design called for a repetitive structure that had the flexibility to 
adapt to the varied bay size of the existing building.  The scheme is defined by its use 
of a central arched opening with rectangular opening to either side.  While the central 
arch remains a constant size throughout the façade, the side windows widths “varied 
Figure 47, Basilica Palladiana, Flexible Bay (Source: Author) 
Figure 48, Basilica Palladiana Arcade (Source: Katty Piazza) 
 48 
 
to absorb the differences in the widths of the bays of the building while presenting the 
viewer with a seemingly regular pattern.”30 
  The space created between the existing building and the new ‘wrap’ offers an 
experience that does not belong solely to the old gothic building or Palladio’s 
intervention. Rather, the space is representative of the harmony between these two 
elements.  The space is both indoor and out; a place for walking and a place of stasis 
and relaxation; respectful of what exists, but persistent in its application of 
contemporary style. 
 The practice of adding-on to existing buildings is a useful technique in 
preserving the character and quality of the original design, while expanding its 
physical footprint and programmatic function.  A contemporary example of this 
intervention type is the National Gallery of Denmark in Copenhagen.  The gallery, 
built in 1896, could no longer meet the necessary requirements of a modern art 
museum.  In 1993, the museum held an open competition in which C.F. Moller 
                                                
30 Francoise Astorg Bollack, Old Buildings New Forms, New York, New York, 2013, p. 113 
Figure 49, National Gallery of Denmark, Parti Diagram, New meets Old (Source: Author) 
 49 
 
Architects won first prize for appropriately addressing the museum’s need for more 
space.31 
 The concept for this addition was two buildings equal parts, but separate 
identities, linked by an internal street where old meets new.  The design team stresses 
that their vision for this building was “to be neither superior nor secondary to the 
existing museum, but to transform it into a complete architectural work using a 
contemporary modernist form language.”32 
 The result is a preservation of the original 1896 building and the addition of 
an equally-sized modern building that supports new gallery space of contemporary 
dimensions and new program appropriate for a museum of current standards with 
elevators, a café, and auditorium-style seating for large gatherings.  The space created 
between the old and new also allows for both styles to be viewed comparatively and 
experienced simultaneously. 
                                                
31 “National Gallery of Denmark,” C.F. Moller Architects, accessed December 17, 2016, 
cfmoller.com 
32 “National Gallery of Denmark,”, cfmoller.com 
 
Figure 50, National Gallery of Denmark. Interior Street (Source: Author) 
 50 
 
Juxtapositions 
San Pietro in Montorio was built between 1481 and 1500 over an existing 9th 
century church.  However, the Tempietto built in the courtyard of San Pietro, is not a 
juxtaposition of tomb to chapel, but rather a composition of contrasting architectural 
styles and proportions within the Tempietto itself.  “The Tempietto of San Pietro in 
Montorio marks the arrival of small-scale research which was one of the poles of 
Bramante’s investigation into the limits of the use of classical repertoire.”33  
 
The Tempietto, Italian for “small temple”, is Donato Bramante’s first 
commission in the city of Rome and is a commemoration of the crucifixion of Saint 
                                                
33 Leonardo Benevolo, The Architecture of the Renaissance. Florence, Italy. 1978, p. 262  
 
Figure 51, Tempietto, Perspective and Plan (Source: Author) 
 51 
 
Peter, said to have taken place on the site.  Bramante creates tension between the 
parts and the whole by applying elements of monumental architecture to a building of 
modest scale.  The temple features a stepped base, Doric columns that support a 
classical entablature, and a dome that encloses a small interior space.  These 
elements, typically suited for representing the power of gods in temples of massive 
scale, are brought back down to earth at the human scale in Bramante’s high 
renaissance rendition.  Bramante gives visitors the ability to circumvent the perimeter 
and view the elements of the temple, once reserved for scale-less works of awe, in its 
entirety. 
In this way, Bramante is challenging our sense of perspective and challenging 
his own “thesis of the priority of the proportional and projective characters in relation 
to those of measurement.”34   
                                                
34 Leonardo Benevolo, The Architecture of the Renaissance. Florence, Italy. 1978, p. 262  
 
Figure 52, San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane, Two Readings (Source: Author) 
 52 
 
A similar perspectival challenge comes from Francesco Borromini in 1638 
with the church of San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane.  Borromini uses classical elements 
of rigidity, order, and stasis – twisting and manipulating – to create curiously plastic 
and fluid forms on the façade and interior.  In this work, there is a juxtaposition 
between the expectation of material properties and the seemingly impossible physical 
arrangement created by Borromini.  The two readings of San Carlo are realized in the 
projected, rectilinear drawings and three-dimensional, curvilinear built form; creating 
harmony and tension through a reinterpretation of material and style. 
 While these ideas of juxtaposition between perception and reality are useful 
from a conceptual perspective, we also must consider the physical juxtaposition of 
built forms.  In a contemporary context, juxtaposition is typically the relationship 
between old and new, where the positioning of these dissimilar objects serve to 
Figure 53, San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane, Interior Dome (Source: Author) 
 53 
 
contrast one another.  In Lafayette, Louisiana the Paul and Lulu Hilliard University 
Art Museum serves a similar purpose.  The machined and polished metal and glass of 
the modern building provided a mirrored backdrop for the existing bundling as a 
means to reflect what came before, not to replicate.   
 
The design, executed by Eskew + Dumez + Ripple, uses a contemporary 
material pallet but borrows a familiar, repetitious ordering system. The mullions 
beyond the glass mimic the verticality of the Doric column, and stop short of ground, 
creating a portico-like transition from 
exterior to interior.  While the building 
is visually dominating, there is a 
certain quietness that results from 
playing a supporting, and reactionary 
role to its existing, older sibling.  
 
 
Figure 54, Juxtaposition of New and Old (Source: Author) 
Figure 55, Paul and Lulu Hilliard University Art Museum 
(Source: Eskew+Dumez+Ripple) 
 54 
 
These interventions of inserting, adding, and juxtaposing can be applied at 
various scales and with a range of intensities throughout our building.  In the next 
section we will examine various program precedents to better understand and define 
the vision of this building, the functions it will provide, and the people it will serve. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 55 
 
Chapter 4: Program 
Vision 
The buildings of the Poole & Hunt Foundry and Machine Works Company 
complex were first designed to cast and construct major components in metalworking 
and engineering.35  Today, this same space can be used for individual expression and 
allow for people to explore their passions.  In the space across from the site, a glass-
products galley serves a dual function by providing a waiting area for the adjacent 
restaurant.  We can build off this success and apply concepts of studio culture from 
our own experiences to provide spaces of overlap to attract the creative and 
collaborative spirit. 
                                                
35 Cathrine F. Black, National Register of Historic Places Inventory, Baltimore, Maryland, 
1972, p. 2 
Figure 56, Program Type, Reviving the Ritual of Making (Source: Author) 
 56 
 
The Poole & Hunt Company was a place where people, enhanced by the 
application of tools, were able to solve problems and create solutions-based 
machinery.  As stated in the introductory chapter, we identified the preservation and 
enhancement of the site’s history as one of our goals.  In this chapter, we will explore 
the various ways designers have paid homage to the past use of a building, while still 
applying contemporary program.  Through the transformation of physical form – 
Chapter 3: Precedent – and the application of new use – Chapter 4: Program – we can 
begin to substantiate and validate the design choices in the following section – 
Chapter 5: Design. 
The programmatic vision is a place for people to learn from one another, be 
exposed to new cultures and people, and create new things together.  This building 
could serve aspiring artists, entrepreneurs, craftsmen, chefs, professionals, etc. under 
one roof, where collaboration and interaction are the essential components to success.  
In providing a place where people can come together, apply modern tools and 
techniques, and create we are seeking to revive the ritual of making on the site where 
the Poole & Hunt company once stood. 
 
Figure 57, Vision for Program (Source: Author) 
 57 
 
Space Defining Elements 
There are three major spaces in the project building.  First is the major space 
that occupies the total height of the building from grade to roof.  Second is the 
mezzanine level that occupies the upper half of the rear third of the building on the 
south side.  Third is the space below the mezzanine level that is defined on its 
northern side by a series of columns, separating this space from the adjacent “great 
space”    
The major space that extends from the ground floor at grade to the monitor 
skylights should be the most public and encompassed the entire “great space.”  This 
space is best suited for the “create” program, remembering the original use of the 
building, but providing a wider range of products. The products are determinant of 
the user, and the user is any willing participant. 
The second space, looking over the major space, would be of the learning 
space-type.  This space would serve as the formal partner to informal and creative 
Figure 58, Building Dimensions and Major Spaces (Source: Author) 
 58 
 
space that it overlooks.  This space will be more geared towards a traditional 
educational environment and provide space for meeting and studying as well. This 
space is a way to compliment the space to the north, (the maker space) to empower 
the user to create and make their own things and interact with people from diverse 
subject areas. 
The third space is of the applied learning type. This is a space where people 
can be educated about the complexities and finer details of the craft.  While the great 
space is for exhibiting, sharing, and collaborating, the space under the mezzanine is 
for learning how to make new things, iterate their concept, and apply what they have 
learned to further their investigations. 
   
The first space will also serve as exhibition space to complete the “circle of 
program” where student works can be displayed and shared to a wider audience in the 
community. 
Figure 59, Concept Sketch, Program Arrangement (Source: Author) 
 59 
 
The zone in which this site is located is OR2, appropriate for the program 
described above, allowing for primary office and supplementary residential.  In 
addition to the building itself, we will consider the redevelopment of the adjacent 
areas of low-density housing to the northwest and southwest of the site.   
 In the next section, we will document three examples collaborative, mixed-use 
program; first, a flexible office space for growing businesses; second, an arts center 
that invites public engagement, and third, a cultural hub and housing center. 
 
Programmatic Precedent 
In this section, we will explore three approaches to collaborative, mixed-use 
program and expand on the strategies that make these organizations successful.  
These approaches exploit the advantages of overlapping use-types and solidify its 
place in contemporary program considerations.  These approaches, that favor 
integration of disparate focus areas over isolation, are becoming more common in 
institutional, corporate, and commercial worlds – recognizing that diversity of people, 
thought processes, and expertise foster innovation and progress. 
This same methodology can be applied to educational environments that 
encourage collaboration and process-oriented learning.  
 
 
 
 
 
 60 
 
HQ 
 Located in Raleigh, North Carolina, HQ provides access to flexible, 
affordable office space for entrepreneurs to build their businesses and collaborate 
with a community of allies.36  As the corporate market has shifted toward remote 
access and digital communication, a need emerges for a physical space for 
interaction. 
 The office is organized around a central collaboration space that features an 
open floor plan, meeting tables, a full-service kitchen and coffee bar.  This space is 
used to host workshops, seminars, and 
social events.  Around the perimeter of 
this space, and occupying the remained 
of the ground floor, are private, turn-
key office suites that are segmented 
                                                
36 “Who We Are”, HQ Raliegh, accessed December 17, 2016, hq.community/who-we-are 
 
Figure 60, HQ Raleigh, Program Arrangement (Source: Author) 
Figure 61, HQ, Open Collaboration Space (Source: HQ 
Raleigh) 
 61 
 
into two parts, a meeting room and a traditional office, within the suite.   
In total, HQ has 22 office suites; 2 large conference rooms; 6 small meeting 
rooms; a multipurpose room for classes, workshops, and events; a café space with 
kitchen and bar; and co-working space weaved throughout the building.  This 
program arrangement provides space-types that range from casual and collaborative 
to private and individual-focused. 
 
Torpedo Factory Arts Center 
 Located in Alexandria, Virginia, the Torpedo Factory Arts Center seeks to 
foster connections between artists and the public.  This symbiotic relationship has 
been a crucial part of this Arts Center’s mission since its conception in 1974, 
allowing the public to view art up close, in person, and in progress.37  The Torpedo 
Factory is defined by three major elements; first, they have permanent studio space 
for artists to work; second, classroom and workshop space is provided for learning 
                                                
37 “About”, Torpedo Factory Art Center, accessed December 17, 2016, 
http://torpedofactory.org 
Figure 63, HQ, Conference Room (Source: HQ 
Raleigh) 
Figure 62, HQ, Co-Working Space (Source: HQ 
Raleigh) 
 62 
 
about art; and third, gallery space and an interior commercial corridor allows for 
visitors to purchase artwork and support local artists. 
 The Torpedo Factory prides itself on being the largest collection of working 
artists’ studios in a single location.  With 82 unique artists’ studios, the Arts Center 
features a wide range of art-types including painting, ceramics, photography, jewelry, 
glass working, metal working, printmaking, sculpture, and also provides space for 
musicians, dancers, and comedians to perform.  The Torpedo Factory has proven to 
be one of Alexandria’s most well-loved 
attractions, drawing over 500,000 visitors each 
year to learn about, make, and buy art along 
the Potomac.  
 Additionally, the venue can be rented 
out for private events including wedding 
ceremonies and receptions, corporate meetings, 
birthdays, etc., with space capacities ranging 
from 25 to 450 people.  The strength of the 
Arts Center is their ability to connect people 
Figure 65, Torpedo Factory Arts Center, Program Arrangement (Source: Author) 
Figure 64, Naval Torpedo Station, Final 
Torpedo Made, 1945 (Source: Alexandria.gov) 
Figure 66, Torpedo Factory Arts Center, 
Interior Corridor (Source: visitalexandria.com) 
 63 
 
with the process of making, while also providing a way for artists to make a living 
doing what they love. 
 
Roombeek Culture Cluster 
 Located in Roombeek, a town within the municipality of Enschede in the 
Netherlands, the Culture Cluster is a mixed-used development built in an old 
warehouse district.  This development was built after a fireworks factory had 
exploded, razing a large swath of city fabric and destroying a majority of their 
cultural landmarks and housing.38   
 
                                                
38 Frank Peter Jager, Old & New: Design Manual for Revitalizing Existing Buildings. Ba: 
Birkhäuser. 2010, p. 42 
Figure 67, Aftermath of Explosion, Roombeek, 2003 
(Source: visitenschede.nl) 
Figure 68, Roombeek Culture Cluster, Axon Render 
(Source: seARCH) 
 64 
 
The mission was to revive the history that had vanished with the loss of these 
industrial monuments by rebuilding around one of the only remaining factories left 
undamaged.  This building, a textile factory from 1907, would serve as the inspiration 
for design, featuring an ascetically weaving structural system and a fabric-like metal 
façade on the exterior of the tallest, and most prominent new member of the complex.  
In addition to the treatment to structure and material choice, the program itself 
weaves throughout the complex, blurring the boundaries between different use-types 
and bringing various end-users closer together. 
Figure 70, Roombeek Culture Cluster, Weaving 
Structure (Source: seARCH) 
Figure 69, Roombeek Culture Cluster, Program Arrangement (Source: Author) 
Figure 71, Roombeek Culture Cluster, Metal Mesh 
Facade (Source: seARCH) 
 65 
 
In total, the Culture Cluster houses 130,000 sqft of program featuring four 
main elements: a museum and café, an arts center, studio space for artists, and 
housing.  Described by author Frank Peter Jager, this complex is a “phoenix in chain 
mail”, built from destruction and now stronger than it once was.39  The end result is a 
collection of eclectic building styles and uses, that converge to form a place that has 
historical artifacts and progressive ideals.  
STEAM 
Throughout the design process, elements of the project are constantly 
evolving.  As the issues of site and building become more clear and the design 
becomes more refined, the program must also adapt.  The final program will combine 
various ideas from the programmatic-precedent study, but will be unlike any 
individual precedent. The program is a STEAM (Science, Tech, Engineering, Art, 
Math) high school curriculum focusing on a collaborative environment with emphasis 
on applied learning through creating and making.  This thesis aims to preserve the 
history of the building and enhance its sense of place, through program and 
architecture, by reviving the ritual of making. 
The school will feature labs for environmental science, biology, chemistry, 
physics, and plant science. Workshops will provide spaces for woodworking, 
robotics, art, film, and digital media.  Core study areas including math, english, world 
language, history, social sciences, etc. will take place in traditional classrooms. 
                                                
39 Frank Peter Jager, Old & New: Design Manual for Revitalizing Existing Buildings. Ba: 
Birkhäuser. 2010, p. 42 
 66 
 
The nature of this program will allow for the initial vision of learning, 
creating, and collaborating to manifest itself in an academy for young adults. 
Introducing students to analytical and creative thinking methods concurrently will 
allow for more robust cross-collaboration between study areas and strengthen the 
relationship between science and the arts. Additionally, some spaces within the 
school may be used for alternative users when class is not in session – nights, 
weekends, and summers – so that the building can reach a larger audience in the 
community. 
The STEAM program represents a balance between science and art, and 
relates to a larger theme of balance that will manifest itself in the architecture.  In the 
next section, we will see how this theme of balance informs the design process, 
allowing for collaboration between science and art; integration of old and new 
architecture; and the weaving of built forms with the natural landscape. 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 67 
 
Chapter 5: Design 
Initial Approach 
The initial approach to the site will be to focus on the three areas in which 
intervention types – insertion, addition, and juxtaposition – would be most 
appropriately applied.  As a result of our analysis, we can identify three areas of the 
site that will allow for development; the Tractor Building itself (Bldg. No. 21), the 
addition and surrounding area to the south (Bldg. No. 21.A), and the 100’ x 100’ open 
lot directly to the building’s west.   
 
Figure 72, Process, Plan (Source: Author) 
 The main structure, the Tractor Building (Bldg. No. 21) is best suited for an 
“inserting.”  This type of intervention is characterized by its “parasitic” quality, where 
the new construction is developed within the shell of the existing building.  The 
central nave space is best suited for open, flexible workspace.  The side aisle will 
 68 
 
house the workshops that open out onto the nave space, while the mezzanine level 
will house traditional classrooms, meeting rooms, and study rooms. 
 
Figure 73, Tractor Building, Asymmetrical Basilica (Source: Author) 
 The southern edge of the building, facing towards the slope of Druid Hill Park 
lends itself to the “addition” strategy of intervention to bring function to the rear of 
the building, as well as engage with the surrounding natural context.  The program in 
this zone will relate to a more intimate scale and address the character of Druid Hill 
Park to the south. 
 
Figure 74, Tractor Building, South Façade (Source: Author) 
building  02Interior Space, Asymmetrical Basilica
Nave Side Aisle
Mezzanine
building  02South  Facade
Water Management
Addition
 69 
 
 The 100’ x 100’ open lot to the west of the Tractor Building is an opportunity 
to engage the streetscape and reveal contemporary elements of the design.  In this 
area, the strategy of “juxtaposing” will be implemented to contrast the old and new 
while bringing program to the street edge.  
 
Figure 75, Tractor Building, West Facade facing adjacent lot (Source: Author)  
The main volume of the building itself will determine the program of the 
adjacent spaces to the south and the empty lot to the west.  Therefore, we will first 
explore the insertion intervention type, followed by the addition type, and finally 
juxtaposition. 
The major space that extends from the ground floor at grade to the monitor 
skylights should be the most public and encompassed the entire “great space.” 
Following the theme of “making”, the initial design approach would be to host this 
creation in the large, central space; remembering the original use of the building, but 
with a contemporary program and collaborative approach. 
The second space within the shell of the existing building, looking over the 
major space, would contain traditional classroom layouts.  This space would serve as 
the formal partner to informal and creative space that it overlooks.  This space will be 
more focused on providing a traditional learning environment and offer space for 
 70 
 
meeting and studying outside class-hours.  This space is a way to compliment the 
space to the north, (the maker space) to empower the user to create and make their 
own things and interact with people who may be seeking to achieve similar goals.  
The third space is of the “communal” type. This is a space that will serve as a 
compliment to the large nave within the Tractor Building, by providing places for 
lectures, athletics, music, etc.  These large spaces, in the Tractor Building and in the 
proposed building, should be capable of functioning independently of one another, 
allowing for concurrent events to be taking place in each space without interference. 
There are several factors that we must also keep in mind.  First, the new 
buildings should be set-back from the old building, allowing for it to be viewed on the 
oblique.  
 
Figure 76, New Building Set-Back, Creating an Entry Plaza (Source: Author) 
 
 
 
 
 71 
 
Secondly, we must consider the site’s steep slope that abuts the building to the 
south and rises towards Druid Hill Park.  The proposal must allow for water to flow 
naturally down the hill to reach the base of the building where it is collected. 
 
Figure 77, Process, Water Flow (Source: Author) 
 
Figure 78, Constructed Wetland, Water Flow (Source: Author) 
 72 
 
 
Figure 79, Pavilions in the Landscape, Allowing Natural Water Flow (Source: Author) 
Lastly, the new building must be delicate at its connections with the old 
building, as to not adversely affect its character and aesthetic. 
 
Figure 80, Delicate Connection, Rotation of Axis (Source: Author) 
   
Pavilions in the Landscape, Delicate Connections design  04
 73 
 
Design Proposal 
 In the final iteration of this design, the approach will attempt to weave the 
natural and the manmade, referencing both the site’s picturesque and industrial 
history. The proposed design will create a procession, leading up to, and arriving at 
the large space located in the historic Tractor Building.  This sequence is comprised 
of four distinct zones: 1. The Plaza and Wetland, 2. The Communal Building, 3. The 
Bridge & Science Labs, 4. The Workspace & Classrooms. 
 
Figure 81, Sequence, Arriving at the Tractor Building (Source: Author) 
While the Tractor Building is sufficient in providing space for the maker 
space, the program is also in need of other space types, ranging in size and function.  
The program will require additional large-volume space, containing a lecture hall, 
gymnasium, cafeteria, library, and service; medium-sized space for science labs and 
traditional classrooms; as well as small-sized spaces for offices, meeting rooms, and 
study rooms.   
 74 
 
In designing these spaces, the 20’ module of the Tractor Building will be used 
to proportion the space of the new buildings.  By borrowing the scale from the 
existing structure, we can ensure that the old and the new are closely related. 
 
Figure 82, 20' Bay Module, Tractor Building (Source: Author) 
The majority of the large, complementary space will be located off the plaza, 
in the communal building.  This building is connected to a bridge-like structure on its 
upper-most level, and allowing access to the science lab classrooms that sit as 
pavilions along the hill.  The terminus of the bridge corridor is met with a feature stair 
that is elevated above the constructed wetland and spans the distance between the 
new buildings and the old.  This stair lands on the mezzanine level of the Tractor 
Building, delicately inserted into one of the large, arched openings along the southern 
façade.   
 
Figure 83, Tractor Building, Arched Windows and Monitor Skylights 
 75 
 
 
Figure 84, Workshops, Tractor Building (Source: Author) 
The mezzanine level of Tractor Building contains traditional classroom 
layouts along its southern edge, with smaller meeting rooms and study rooms on the 
third floor, and the large workspace on the ground floor.  The space below the 
mezzanine is home to all the workshops containing plant science, woodworking, 
robotics, art, digital media, and film that surround the edge of the full-heighted great 
space.  This central space is open and flexible, promoting a collaborative learning 
environment and allowing for students in various classes to share their work with one 
another.  
 
Figure 85, Transverse Section, Workshops and Flexible Space (Source: Author) 
 
 76 
 
 
Figure 86, Ground Floor Plan (Source: Author) 
 
Figure 87, Mezzanine Level of Tractor Building, 3rd Floor of New Buildings (Source: Author) 
 77 
 
The Plaza & Wetland 
 
Figure 88, Entry Plaza (Source: Author) 
 The entry plaza is flanked by the Tractor Building and the Wagon House to 
the east and west, respectively, and is defined by the communal space building on its 
southern edge.  The plaza is a mixture of paving stones and green spaces with trees 
placed throughout.  The plaza slopes slightly to the south and allows access to the 
communal building’s ground floor on-grade.  On its south-east corner, the plaza gives 
way to a set of amphitheater-style stairs that lead up to an elevated outdoor-patio that 
overlooks the constructed wetland, while also providing access to the second floor of 
the communal building. 
 
Figure 89, North Elevation, Tractor Building (Source: Author) 
 78 
 
 
Figure 90, Wetland Overlook (Source: Author) 
The constructed wetland is situated between the Tractor Building and the 
bridge.  The design allows for water to flow between the classroom pavilions, down 
an aeration course, through the wetland itself, and finally a cistern at the base of the 
hill. This wetland will naturally filter rainwater that falls on the site, providing 
greywater for use throughout the building complex. 
 
Figure 91, Wetland, Proportions and Organization (Source: Author) 
 79 
 
The Communal Building 
 
Figure 92, Gymnasium, The Communal Building (Source: Author) 
 The communal building houses the majority of the large-space program 
including the lecture hall, gymnasium, cafeteria, and library.  Also, included in this 
building is the administrative offices towards the front of the building and the service 
program – loading and mechanical – is located at the rear.   
The entrance is located at the north-west corner of the building, and can be 
accessed on-grade from the plaza.  The entry leads to a lobby area that serves both the 
administrative offices and the lecture hall.  The lecture hall seats 400 for 
presentations, plays, and performances.  It also features three music rooms on its east 
side for classes and dress rehearsals.   
 
Figure 93, Section through Plaza and Communal Building (Source: Author) 
 80 
 
 
 A stair is located off the lobby 
space on the west façade of the 
building.  This stair is reminiscent of 
stairs typically found on the exterior of 
mills in the surrounding area.  This stair 
is enclosed in class and has landings on 
each floor, axial to the path of main 
circulation.   
 The second floor has a cafeteria 
towards the front of the building, with 
access to the outdoor patio to the east.  
To the south of the café, and at the rear 
of the building is the double-heighted 
gymnasium – a space that measures 98’ 
wide and 104’ in length – supported by 
a space-truss. 
The third, and upper-most level of the 
communal building is home to the 
school’s library collection.  This area 
has both traditional and digital media to 
appeal to various methods of learning 
and pedagogy.  The library has an open  
Figure 94, Communal Building, Exploded Axon (Source: 
Author) 
 81 
 
floor plan with a reading area along the north façade, overlooking the plaza.  The 
library stacks separate the reading area from the small meeting rooms to the south 
with the main circulation path, connecting the stair to the bridge, in between. 
 
Figure 95, Library, View Towards Bridge, Communal Building (Source: Author) 
 This circulation path forms a corridor connecting the library level of the 
communal building to the four science lab pavilions along the hillside. 
 
Figure 96, Library Connection to Bridge and Science Labs (Source: Author) 
 82 
 
The Bridge & Science Labs 
 
Figure 97, Section Perspective (Source: Author) 
This bridge-like structural element rises above the ground providing access to 
the four science lab pavilions in the landscape, also allowing for rainwater to travel 
from the top of the hill through the aeration course and down to the constructed 
wetland below.  This wetland features a series of terraces that will naturally filter the 
water to be used as greywater throughout the site.   
Visually, this structure borrows its language from the interior of the tractor 
building that employs the same system to supports its mezzanine level.  This bridge 
also acts as a corridor to provide access to the 4 pavilions built into the landscape - 
containing traditional classroom layouts for math science language and history, as 
well as offices and more meeting space between the volumes. And like the bridge it's 
 83 
 
attached to, these too borrow from the old building - continuing the slope of the roof 
and resembling the monitor skylights that are so important to this building's 
character.    
 
Figure 98, Bridge (Source: Author) 
The bridge is suspended above the wetland, providing visual access to the 
landscape and the southern façade of the Tractor Building across the way. The Bridge 
is supported by a structural box-truss with interior glazing offset from its outermost 
limits.  A sculpted ceiling plane reviles the structure overhead, explicit in showing its 
tectonics. 
 
Figure 99, Bridge Section Perspective (Source: Author) 
 84 
 
 The science labs that the bridge serves are constructed of poured-in-place 
concrete walls with a southern-facing angled roof, supported by a steel trusses.  The 
roof is angled with clearstory windows around the perimeter off the concreate base – 
with the smallest clearstory windows, measuring two feet towards the south, growing 
to eight feet on the north façade, allowing for diffuse and even lighting. 
 
Figure 100, Science Lab Classroom, Seated, Looking towards Tractor Building (Source: Author) 
 The classroom is organized into two main parts: student desks for lecture-style 
lessons and lab tables for experiments and applied learning.  The walls closest to the 
bridge corridor are angled to exhibit work for students to see as they pass by.  In 
between each large science lab are smaller meeting spaces and offices for teachers. 
 
Figure 101, Bridge & Science Labs, North Elevation (Source: Author) 
 
 85 
 
The Workshops & Classrooms 
 
Figure 102, Workspace, Tractor Building (Source: Author) 
The sequence leads up to, and culminates, in the historic Tractor Building.  
The feature stair that connects the bridge to the mezzanine level of the old building is 
inserted through one of the arched openings on the Tractor Building’s south 
facade.  This connection is designed to be sensitive to the integrity of the existing 
building; delicate at its connection and careful not to add anything unnecessary to the 
exterior.  
 
Figure 103, Feature Stair, Connecting Bridge to Tractor Building (Source: Author) 
 86 
 
 The mezzanine is lined with traditional 
classrooms, occupying two bay modules, and 
study areas, occupying single bay modules 
located between classrooms.  One level above 
the classrooms are smaller, single-bay 
meeting rooms and classrooms.   
The mezzanine level overlooks the 
multi-heighted central space, which is book-
ended to the east and west with program that 
draws parallels between the building’s 
historic and contemporary function.  To the 
east is a small museum dedicated to the 
history of manufacturing at Clipper Mill and 
a main stair that leads down to the workspace 
areas.  To the west is amphitheater-style 
seating with an integrated stair as a second 
mode of access to the mezzanine level which 
leads to exhibition space to display the 
creative works of the students.  This 
relationship across the maker space creates a Figure 104, Workshops, Classrooms, and Meeting Rooms (Source: Author) 
 87 
 
dialogue between old and new, highlighting the role that making has played 
throughout the building’s history. 
 
Figure 105, Classrooms, Mezzanine Level of Tractor Building (Source: Author) 
On the ground level the side aisle is infilled with large workshops dedicated to 
woodworking, robotics, plant science, art, digital media and film.  The large open 
space is meant to be used as flexible space - malleable and practical - changing to fit 
the needs of the users.  The workshops can open onto the main space by lifting their 
garage door-style enclosures, in order to interact with other students exploring 
different subjects in the interest of cross-collaboration. 
On weekend the space can be used for markets and workshops where people 
can take lessons or purchase things made by local community members. They can 
hold public or private events in the large space - tied into a sense of community and 
 
Figure 106, Tractor Building Section through Workspace (Source: Author) 
 88 
 
growth in the area and tying it back to how this building previously played a 
significant role in the well-being of the locals.  This place was once used for creating 
and it can return to that state with a renewed sense of urgency filled with the curiosity 
and energy of our youth. The world is a constantly evolving place that will challenge 
us with problems that we have not yet come to know.   
Figure 107, Workspace Section (Source: Author) 
This thesis aims to preserve the history of the Tractor Building and enhance 
its sense of place by reviving the ritual of making.  This revival comes in the form of 
active educational environments that emphasize learning through the act of making; a 
method of pedagogy that demonstrates the power of critical thinking and teaches 
students not what to think, but how to think in order to solve problems. 
 89 
 
 
Figure 108, Workspace, Tractor Building (Source: Author) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 90 
 
Bibliography 
“About”, Torpedo Factory Art Center, accessed December 17, 2016, http://torpedofactory.org 
 
Cathrine F. Black, National Register of Historic Places Inventory, Baltimore, Maryland, 
1972. 
 
Douglas Murphy, The Architecture of Failure, London, England, 2012 
 
Francoise Astorg Bollack, Old Buildings New Forms, New York, New York, 2013. 
Frank Peter Jager, Old & New: Design Manual for Revitalizing Existing Buildings. Ba: 
Birkhäuser. 2010. 
 
Kevin Lynch and Gary Hack, Site Planning, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1984. 
 
Leonardo Benevolo, The Architecture of the Renaissance. Florence, Italy. 1978 
 
Maryland Department of the Environment, Facts About: Former Seagram Property, 
Baltimore, Maryland, 2012. 
 
“National Gallery of Denmark,” C.F. Moller Architects, accessed December 17, 2016, 
cfmoller.com 
 
Sidney Magee, The Open System, Eugene, Oregon, 2008 
 
Stewart Brand, How Buildings Learn, New York, New York, 1994. 
 
Tartar Rosenthal/Apollo (Firm), Fells Point Recreation Pier Reuse, Baltimore, Maryland, 
1980. 
 
 “Who We Are”, HQ Raliegh, accessed December 17, 2016, hq.community/who-we-are