ABSTRACT 
 
 
 
 
Title of Document: RENEWING COMMUNITY IN COLLEGE 
PARK   
  
 Kimberly Kramer, Master of Architecture, 2009 
  
Directed By: Professor Brian Kelly, School of Architecture, 
Planning and Preservation 
 
 
The Calvert School served the city of College Park for more than 50 years.  Now 
vacant, the building still sits at the heart of the historic College Park community.  
Adaptively reusing this well-loved building as a community center will bring new life 
to the building and site and provide a much-needed center for community activities in 
College Park.  Reusing an existing building will also help to conserve economic and 
environmental resources, as well as preserving a visual artifact of the history and 
sense of community that bind the neighborhood.  This thesis explores and proposes a 
variety of approaches to adaptive reuse and building for community, attempting to 
find a design strategy that suits the building, the site, the community and the proposed 
program, while balancing aesthetics and functionality with cultural, historical and 
environmental responsibility. 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RENEWING COMMUNITY IN COLLEGE PARK 
 
 
 
By 
 
 
Kimberly Kramer 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
2009 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Advisory Committee: 
Professor Brian Kelly, Chair 
Professor Matthew Bell 
Professor B.D. Wortham-Galvin 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
? Copyright by 
Kimberly Kramer 
2009 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ii 
 
Dedication 
To my father, who encouraged me to follow this path, and made it possible. 
And to the friends, family and faculty whose support, encouragement and assistance 
helped me along the way. 
 
Thank you. 
 iii 
 
Acknowledgements 
This thesis would not have been possible without the suggestions, help and advice of 
many people.  I would like to thank: 
 
Brian Kelly, my committee chair, for his steadfast support and enthusiasm and 
continuous supply of good ideas and new solutions.   
 
B.D. Wortham-Galvin, who shepherded this project along from first concept to final 
draft, providing a great deal of design guidance, encouragement and emotional 
support along the way. 
 
Matthew Bell, who offered frank and helpful critiques and advice throughout the 
design process, and helped me to a deeper understanding of Palladio?s work. 
 
Elisa Vitale, Senior Planner for the City of College Park, who helped tremendously 
with the initial research for this project. 
 
Ben Rivas, also with the City of College Park, for showing me around the Calvert 
School and helping to look after and maintain the building until it finds a new use.
 iv 
 
Table of Contents 
 
Dedication ..................................................................................................................... ii?
 Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... iii?
 List of Tables ............................................................................................................... vi?
 List of Figures ............................................................................................................. vii?
 Chapter 1: Adaptive Reuse ........................................................................................ 1?
 Cultural benefits ........................................................................................................ 1?
 Environmental benefits ............................................................................................. 2?
 Economic benefits ..................................................................................................... 3?
 Chapter 2: Site ? The Calvert School ........................................................................ 5?
 Description and brief history .................................................................................... 5?
 Surrounding context .................................................................................................. 6?
 Current conditions ................................................................................................ 6?
 Historical development ....................................................................................... 14?
 Future development ............................................................................................ 16?
 Site documentation and analysis ............................................................................. 21?
 Building documentation and analysis ..................................................................... 31?
 Chapter 3: Program Analysis .................................................................................. 45?
 Proposed building program ..................................................................................... 45?
 Program precedents ................................................................................................. 49?
 Gleneagles Community Center ........................................................................... 49?
 Plummer Park Community Center ...................................................................... 54?
 West Street Community Center ........................................................................... 57?
 Proposed Salk Institute Campus Community Center .......................................... 59?
 Program development ............................................................................................. 61?
 Chapter 4: Architectural Design Strategy .............................................................. 70?
 Adaptive reuse strategies ........................................................................................ 70?
 Physical actions .................................................................................................. 70?
 Attitude ................................................................................................................ 71?
 Matrix of design variables .................................................................................. 71?
 Design strategy precedents ..................................................................................... 72?
 Porter House ....................................................................................................... 72?
 Jim Rouse Visionary Center................................................................................ 73?
 New York Blood Center ...................................................................................... 74?
 Design development ................................................................................................ 75?
 Initial schemes .................................................................................................... 75?
 Scheme development ........................................................................................... 80?
 Scheme synthesis/refinement ............................................................................... 86?
 Design solutions ...................................................................................................... 88?
 Design solution #1: Town Square ....................................................................... 88?
 Design solution #2: The Lawn ............................................................................ 96?
 Comparative analysis of design solutions......................................................... 104?
 Chapter 5: Conclusion ............................................................................................ 122?
 Summary of the jury?s assessment ........................................................................ 122?
 Response to the jury?s critique .............................................................................. 125?
 v 
 
Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 134?
 vi 
 
List of Tables 
 
Table 1: Census 2000 age data for 20740 zip code (Author, with data from Census 
2000) ........................................................................................................................... 61?
 Table 2: Census 2000 age data for 207xx zip codes (Census 2000) ........................... 62?
 Table 3: Floor area for proposed program elements (Author) .................................... 66?
 Table 4: Matrix of design variables (Author) ............................................................. 71?
 Table 5: Town Square - 5 point summary (Author) ................................................. 104?
 Table 6: The Lawn - 5 point summary (Author) ....................................................... 104?
 Table 7: Indoor program comparison (Author) ........................................................ 106?
 Table 8: Outdoor program comparison (Author) ...................................................... 107?
 Table 9: Building envelope comparison (Author) .................................................... 107?
  
 vii 
 
List of Figures 
Figure 1: Calvert School, College Park, MD (Author) ................................................. 5?
 Figure 2: Site timeline (Author, images from The First Twenty-Five Years of the City 
of College Park) ............................................................................................................ 6?
 Figure 3: Relationship of site to Washington, DC (Live Search Maps) ....................... 7?
 Figure 4: Local context (Live Search Maps) ................................................................ 8?
 Figure 5: Walking radii from site (Author, base image from Google Maps) ............... 9?
 Figure 6: Landmarks (Author, base image from Google Maps) ................................... 9?
 Figure 7: Community resources (Author, base image from Google Maps) ............... 10?
 Figure 8: Parks and playgrounds (Author, base image from Google Maps) .............. 11?
 Figure 9: Main transportation routes around site (Author, base image from Google 
Maps) .......................................................................................................................... 12?
 Figure 10: Figure-ground diagram of site and surrounding area (Author) ................. 13?
 Figure 11: Land use diagram of site and surrounding area (Author) .......................... 13?
 Figure 12: Sketchup model of site (Author, base image from Google Maps) ............ 14?
 Figure 13: 1939 Sanborn map (with 1959 update) (1939-1959 Sanborn map) .......... 15?
 Figure 14: Historic vs. Current figure-ground diagrams (Author, historic base map 
from 1939 Sanborn map) ............................................................................................ 16?
 Figure 15: Draft illustrative concept plan for Route 1 (Prince George?s County 
Planning Board) .......................................................................................................... 17?
 Figure 16: Detail of Route 1 draft illustrative concept plan (Prince George?s County 
Planning Board) .......................................................................................................... 17?
 Figure 17: Major planned developments around site (Author, base image from Google 
Maps) .......................................................................................................................... 18?
 Figure 18: East Campus Redevelopment Initiative ? The Vision (East Campus 
Redevelopment Initiative) [the Calvert School site is located off of this map] .......... 19?
 Figure 19: East Campus Redevelopment Initiative ? Master Plan (East Campus 
Redevelopment Initiative) [the Calvert School site is located off of this map] .......... 20?
 Figure 20: Cafritz site development plan (Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut & Kuhn Architects) 21?
 Figure 21: Site plan (Author) ...................................................................................... 22?
 Figure 22: Existing trees on site (Author) ................................................................... 23?
 Figure 23: Site topography (Author, based on information from a U.S. Geological 
Survey GIS map)......................................................................................................... 24?
 Figure 24: Historical water path (Author, based on information from the 1939 
Sanborn Map).............................................................................................................. 24?
 Figure 25: View to site from the northwest (Author) ................................................. 25?
 Figure 26: View to site from the northeast (Author) .................................................. 26?
 Figure 27: View to site from the southwest (Author) ................................................. 27?
 Figure 28: View to site from the southeast (Author) .................................................. 27?
 Figure 29: View from site to the southwest (Author) ................................................. 28?
 Figure 30: View from site to the southeast (Author) .................................................. 29?
 Figure 31: View from site to the north (Author) ......................................................... 30?
 Figure 32: View from site to the northwest (Author) ................................................. 30?
 Figure 33: Building elevation ? north (Author) .......................................................... 32?
 viii 
 
Figure 34: Building elevation ? south (Author) .......................................................... 32?
 Figure 35: Building elevation ? west (Author) ........................................................... 32?
 Figure 36: Building elevation ? east (Author) ............................................................ 32?
 Figure 37: Materiality ? Calvert School building (Author) ........................................ 33?
 Figure 38: Materiality ? surrounding context (Author) .............................................. 33?
 Figure 39: Calvert School upper level floor plan (College Park city engineer) ......... 35?
 Figure 40: Calvert School lower level floor plan (College Park city engineer) ......... 35?
 Figure 41: Calvert School addition floor plan (College Park city engineer) .............. 36?
 Figure 42: CAD drawing of Calvert School upper level floor plan (Author) ............. 36?
 Figure 43: CAD drawing of Calvert School lower level floor plan (Author) ............. 37?
 Figure 44: CAD drawing of Calvert School addition floor plan (Author) ................. 37?
 Figure 45: Interior photo ? main hallway (Author) .................................................... 38?
 Figure 46: Interior photo ? staircase (Author) ............................................................ 39?
 Figure 47: Interior photo ? main hallway of 1954 addition (Author) ......................... 40?
 Figure 48: Interior photo ? upper level classroom (Author) ....................................... 41?
 Figure 49: Interior photo ? classroom in 1954 addition (Author) .............................. 41?
 Figure 50: Interior photo ? lower level (Author) ........................................................ 42?
 Figure 51: Calvert Hills playground (Author) ............................................................ 43?
 Figure 52: Calvert Hills playground ? jungle gym (Author) ...................................... 43?
 Figure 53: Calvert Hills playground ? basketball court and play field (Author) ........ 44?
 Figure 54: Map showing site in relation to Old Town and Calvert Hills neighborhoods 
(Author, base image of City of College Park by Charles P. Johnson & Associates).. 45?
 Figure 55: College Park city hall (The Historical Marker Database) ......................... 46?
 Figure 56: Current location of city hall (Author) ........................................................ 47?
 Figure 57: Aerial view of city hall (Google Maps) ..................................................... 47?
 Figure 58: Entrance to city hall from town center (Google Maps street view) .......... 48?
 Figure 59: Calvert School building - civic fa?ade (Author) ....................................... 48?
 Figure 60: Gleneagles Community Center - building section (Patkau Architects) .... 49?
 Figure 61: Gleneagles Community Center ? exterior (Patkau Architects) ................. 50?
 Figure 62: Gleneagles Community Center ? exterior (Patkau Architects) ................. 51?
 Figure 63: Gleneagles Community Center ? gymnasium (Patkau Architects) ........... 52?
 Figure 64: Gleneagles Community Center ? lower level plan (Patkau Architects) .... 53?
 Figure 65: Gleneagles Community Center ? main level plan (Patkau Architects) ..... 53?
 Figure 66: Gleneagles Community Center ? upper level plan (Patkau Architects) .... 53?
 Figure 67: Plummer Park Community Center ? exterior (Koning Eizenberg 
Architecture) ............................................................................................................... 56?
 Figure 68: Plummer Park Community Center ? site plan (Koning Eizenberg 
Architecture) ............................................................................................................... 56?
 Figure 69: West Street Community Center ? exterior perspective ............................. 58?
 Figure 70: Proposed Salk Institute campus community center ? program (ACSA) ... 60?
 Figure 71: Parking options near the Calvert School site (Author) .............................. 65?
 Figure 72: Proposed program (Author)....................................................................... 67?
 Figure 73: Program analysis ? proposed vs. existing sf (Author)............................... 68?
 Figure 74: Analysis of proposed program (Author) ................................................... 69?
 Figure 75: Porter House (SHoP architects) ................................................................. 72?
 ix 
 
Figure 76: Wood timber structure reused as space divider (Cho Ben Hollback + 
Assoc.) ........................................................................................................................ 73?
 Figure 77: Barrel staves reused as interior walls (Cho Ben Hollback + Assoc.) ........ 74?
 Figure 78: New York Blood Center (Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut & Kuhn) ......................... 74?
 Figure 79: Initial scheme ?Addition (Author) ............................................................ 75?
 Figure 80: Initial schemes ? Subtraction, 1st floor (Author) ....................................... 76?
 Figure 81: Initial schemes - Subtraction, 2nd  floor (Author) ...................................... 76?
 Figure 82: Initial schemes - Alteration, 1st floor (Author) .......................................... 77?
 Figure 83: Initial schemes - Alteration, 2nd floor (Author) ......................................... 77?
 Figure 84: Initial schemes - Alteration 2, 1st floor (Author) ....................................... 78?
 Figure 85: Initial schemes - Alteration 2, 2nd floor (Author) ...................................... 78?
 Figure 86: Initial schemes - Recombination, 1st floor (Author) .................................. 79?
 Figure 87: Initial schemes - Recombination, 2nd floor (Author) ................................. 79?
 Figure 88: The Walk (Author) .................................................................................... 80?
 Figure 89: The Walk/The Quad (Author) ................................................................... 81?
 Figure 90: Porches (Author) ....................................................................................... 82?
 Figure 91: Town Square (Author)............................................................................... 83?
 Figure 92: The Lawn 1 (Author) ................................................................................. 84?
 Figure 93: The Lawn 2 (Author) ................................................................................. 85?
 Figure 94: Scheme development - The Lawn (Author) .............................................. 86?
 Figure 95: Scheme development - Town Square (Author) ......................................... 86?
 Figure 96: Scheme synthesis/refinement - drawings (Author) ................................... 87?
 Figure 97: Scheme synthesis/refinement - models (Author) ...................................... 87?
 Figure 98: Design solution #1- Town Square (Author) .............................................. 88?
 Figure 99: Perspective of town square (Author) ......................................................... 89?
 Figure 100: Town Square - urban implications (Author) ........................................... 90?
 Figure 101: Town Square - aerial views with city context (Author) .......................... 90?
 Figure 102: Town Square - first floor plan (Author) .................................................. 91?
 Figure 103: Town Square - second floor plan (Author) ............................................. 91?
 Figure 104: The Walk (Author) .................................................................................. 92?
 Figure 105: Semi-private courtyard (Author) ............................................................. 93?
 Figure 106: Gymnasium with visual and physical connections to courtyard green 
space (Author) ............................................................................................................. 93?
 Figure 107: Gateway - entry to courtyard and connection between old and new 
(Author)....................................................................................................................... 94?
 Figure 108: View from Calvert Road (Author) .......................................................... 94?
 Figure 109: Entrance to semi-private courtyard (Author) .......................................... 95?
 Figure 110: Design solution #2 - The Lawn (Author) ................................................ 96?
 Figure 111: Lawn scheme aerial perspective (Author) ............................................... 97?
 Figure 112: View from Calvert Road (Author) .......................................................... 97?
 Figure 113: Park space, with view toward the lawn (Author) .................................... 98?
 Figure 114: Central lawn lined with colonnade (Author) ........................................... 98?
 Figure 115: Partial section of central lawn space and surrounding two-story 
colonnade (Author) ..................................................................................................... 98?
 Figure 116: Second level of colonnade and connection to town assembly room 
(Author)....................................................................................................................... 99?
 x 
 
Figure 117: Outdoor porch at second level (Author) .................................................. 99?
 Figure 118: The Lawn ? iconic portion of existing building (Author) ..................... 100?
 Figure 119: Possible evidence that the ?tail? of the historic building was a later 
addition (Author) ...................................................................................................... 101?
 Figure 120: The Lawn ? aerial views with city context (Author) ............................. 102?
 Figure 121: The Lawn - first floor plan (Author) ..................................................... 103?
 Figure 122: The Lawn - second floor plan (Author) ................................................. 103?
 Figure 123: Town Square - 5 point summary (Author) ............................................ 105?
 Figure 124: The Lawn - 5 point summary (Author) ................................................. 105?
 Figure 125: Brick reuse - Town Square (Author) ..................................................... 108?
 Figure 126: Brick reuse - The Lawn (Author) .......................................................... 109?
 Figure 127: Existing trees on site (Author)............................................................... 109?
 Figure 128: Maintenance of existing trees - Town Square (Author) ........................ 110?
 Figure 129: Maintenance of existing trees - The Lawn (Author) ............................. 110?
 Figure 130: Program elements ? key (Author) ......................................................... 112?
 Figure 131: Location of program elements ? Town Square, Floors 1 & 2 (Author) 112?
 Figure 132: Location of program elements ? The Lawn, Floor 1 (Author) .............. 113?
 Figure 133: Location of program elements ? The Lawn, Floor 2 (Author) .............. 113?
 Figure 134: Access to daylight, program requirements ? key (Author) ................... 114?
 Figure 135 Access to daylight ? Town Square, Floors 1 & 2 (Author) .................... 114?
 Figure 136: Access to daylight ? The Lawn, Floor 1 (Author) ................................ 115?
 Figure 137: Access to daylight ? The Lawn, Floor 2 (Author) ................................ 115?
 Figure 138: Noisy/quiet spaces- key (Author) .......................................................... 116?
 Figure 139: Arrangement of noisy/quiet spaces - Town Square, Floors 1 & 2 (Author)
 ................................................................................................................................... 116?
 Figure 140: Arrangement of noisy/quiet spaces ? The Lawn, Floor 1 (Author) ...... 117?
 Figure 141: Arrangement of noisy/quiet spaces ? The Lawn, Floor 2 (Author) ...... 117?
 Figure 142: Public/private spaces ? key (Author) .................................................... 118?
 Figure 143: Arrangement of public/private spaces - Town Square, Floors 1 & 2 
(Author)..................................................................................................................... 118?
 Figure 144: Arrangement of public/private spaces, The Lawn, Floor 1 (Author) .... 119?
 Figure 145: Arrangement of public/private spaces, The Lawn, Floor 2 (Author) .... 119?
 Figure 146: Served/Servant spaces ? key (Author) .................................................. 120?
 Figure 147: Arrangement of served/servant spaces - Town Square, Floors 1 & 2 
(Author)..................................................................................................................... 120?
 Figure 148: Arrangement of served/servant spaces - The Lawn, Floor 1 (Author) .. 121?
 Figure 149: Arrangement of served/servant spaces - The Lawn, Floor 2 (Author) .. 121?
 Figure 150: Town Commons - new land use map (Author) ..................................... 125?
 Figure 151: The Lawn - front and back (Author) ..................................................... 126?
 Figure 152: Sectional study of lawn (Author) .......................................................... 127?
 Figure 153: 3d representation of Lawn space (Author) ............................................ 127?
 Figure 154: 3d representation Lawn space with increased height (Author) ............. 127?
 Figure 155: Diagram of connections between indoor and outdoor programmed spaces 
- Town Commons (Author) ...................................................................................... 129?
 Figure 156: Diagram of connections between indoor and outdoor programmed spaces 
? The Lawn (Author) ................................................................................................ 130?
 xi 
 
Figure 157: Schematic exploration of relaxed geometries ? Town Commons 1 
(Author)..................................................................................................................... 131?
 Figure 158: Schematic exploration of relaxed geometries ? Town Commons 2 
(Author)..................................................................................................................... 131?
 Figure 159: Schematic exploration of relaxed geometries ? The Lawn 1 (Author) . 132?
 Figure 160: Schematic exploration of relaxed geometries ? The Lawn 2 (Author) . 133?
 Figure 161: Schematic exploration of relaxed geometries ? The Lawn 3 (Author) . 133?
 Figure 162: Schematic exploration of combined scheme (Author) .......................... 135?
  
 1 
 
Chapter 1: Adaptive Reuse 
Adaptive Reuse is the process of adapting existing structures for new uses.1  
There are many reasons for property owners and developers to reuse existing 
structures rather than building new.  These reasons generally fall into three main 
categories: Cultural, Environmental, and/or Economic. 
Cultural benefits 
Existing structures are repositories of valuable cultural resources.  Older 
structures embody a link to the past, both in terms of architectural design and the 
history of people, places and events that become associated with them over time.  The 
continued presence of these structures in a town or city maintains this link and 
provides a sense of continuity in a built fabric that is constantly changing. 
The cultural value of this built heritage has been codified in laws that protect 
historic structures, from the National Historic Preservation Act2 to state and local 
preservation ordinances.  The Supreme Court has upheld the right of individuals to 
use such laws to protect their ?aesthetic, conservational, and recreational? values.3  
However, these recognized cultural benefits are not limited to structures that would 
generally be considered architecturally or historically significant.  Every structure that 
has already been built has some cultural significance in terms of the forces that led to 
its creation, the style of its design, and the experiences of the people who have 
interacted with it.  By preserving the culturally valuable aspects of these existing 
                                                 
1 Wikipedia, ?Adaptive Reuse,? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_reuse. 
2 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, ?National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,? 
http://www.achp.gov/docs/nhpa%202008-final.pdf. 
3 Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972). 
 2 
 
structures, property owners and developers can maintain that link to the past and 
retain the structure as a landmark even when it is necessary to make changes to meet 
new needs or to improve the structure?s performance or appearance. 
Environmental benefits 
In addition to their value as repositories of cultural resources, existing 
structures also represent an investment of environmental resources.  As we face a 
number of man-made environmental problems from ozone damage and global 
warming to the destruction of forests and habitats, we must think critically about how 
we will use the limited environmental resources that we have available to us.  New 
building construction is a significant drain on these limited resources.  The National 
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) reports that the wood used to build an average 
new American home is the equivalent of roughly three-quarters of an acre of forest.4  
Half of the world?s forests are now gone, they report, and more than 30 million acres 
more are lost every year.5  The demand for wood to build new houses fuels much of 
the destructive logging around the world.6 
The demolition of existing structures is also a strain on the environment.  The 
US Department of Energy (DOE) reports that the demolition of existing buildings 
creates 64.8 million tons of debris in the US per year. 7  This demolition waste is 
typically sent unsorted to a landfill, wasting the energy that has already been 
                                                 
4 Natural Resources Defense Council, ?How to Build a Better Home,? 
http://www.nrdc.org/cities/building/fwoodus.asp. 
5 Natural Resources Defense Council, ?Forests,? http://www.nrdc.org/land/forests/default.asp. 
6 Natural Resources Defense Council, ?How to Build a Better Home,? 
http://www.nrdc.org/cities/building/fwoodus.asp. 7 Buildings Energy Data Book: September 2008, ?1.4.14: 1996 Construction and Demolition Debris 
Generated from Construction Activities and Debris Generation Rates,? U.S. Department of Energy, 
http://buildingsdatabook.eere.energy.gov/. 
 3 
 
embodied in those materials through the extraction, manufacturing, shipping and 
building processes.  Typical existing concrete column and beam assemblies, for 
example, have roughly 0.13MMBtu/sf of embodied energy, according to the DOE?s 
calculations. 8  This translates to about 20.17 pounds of CO2 equivalent emissions per 
square foot.9  If these materials are not recycled and reused, this embodied energy is 
simply wasted.  Further, this demolition often simply makes way for new building 
construction which will create demand for even more resources. 
Adaptively reusing existing structures, rather than building new, honors the 
investment of environmental resources that has already been made in those structures 
and reduces the demand for new building materials and greenfield sites.  Like cultural 
value, these environmental resources are embodied by all existing buildings, not just 
those that have been identified as architecturally or historically significant. 
Economic benefits 
Property owners can also often realize an economic benefit from adaptively 
reusing an existing structure rather than building new.  David Clark, who often works 
professionally with property owners making decisions about reuse, argues that ?the 
most important factor in the decision to reuse is cost.?10  The economic reality is that 
no matter how important existing buildings are as cultural and environmental 
resources, if reuse cannot be a profitable venture, it is much less likely to be pursued.  
                                                 
8 Buildings Energy Data Book: September 2008, ?1.6.8: Embodied Energy of Column and Beam 
Assemblies in the U.S.,? U.S. Department of Energy, http://buildingsdatabook.eere.energy.gov/.  
9 Ibid. 
10 David Clark, ?Adaptive Reuse,? APT DC Newsletter, Summer 2006, 
http://apt.dc.org.googlepages.com//Newsletters/SUMMER2006_.pdf. 
 4 
 
He explains that there are, however, many cost advantages to reusing an older 
structure: 
To begin with, there are lower establishment costs.  There is little to no 
demolition required, land acquisition is often less expensive, and many 
if not all of the required utilities and services are already connected 
and may only need modernization.  There are additional savings in the 
fact that the structure is already in place.  Materials and their 
corresponding erection costs have already been accounted for.11 
 
Adaptive reuse projects may also be eligible for federal, state and/or local historic 
preservation tax credits.12  The Structural Group, a company that often works on 
adaptive reuse projects, explains on its website that: 
A common misconception is that it's more cost-efficient to tear down 
an old building and build a new structure. However, new construction 
- especially if the building is in a historic district - may fall under a set 
of building regulations that could have a financial impact on 
construction. 13 
 
In such a case, they conclude, it can be ?much more cost-effective to preserve and 
adapt the existing structure to its new purpose.? 14 
                                                 
11 David Clark, ?Adaptive Reuse,? APT DC Newsletter, Summer 2006, 
http://apt.dc.org.googlepages.com//Newsletters/SUMMER2006_.pdf. 
12 Ibid. 
13 Design Cost Data E-News, ?Preserving the Past: Historic Repair Requires Informed Approach?, 
Structural Group, http://www.structural.net/Article/tabid/434/contentid/176/Default.aspx. 
14 Ibid. 
 5 
 
Chapter 2: Site ? The Calvert School 
Description and brief history 
The Calvert School (Figure 1) is located at 4601 Calvert Road, in College 
Park, Maryland.  The building was originally built in 1938 to serve as an elementary 
school for the rapidly growing neighborhood.15  A later addition to the school was 
added in 1954.  The building served the neighborhood as a school for more than 50 
years, first as a public school, then as the Friends? Community School.  Now vacant, 
the building still sits at the heart of the historic College Park community.  
 
Figure 1: Calvert School, College Park, MD (Author) 
 
                                                 
15 Digital Sanborn Map Collection, ?1939 Sanborn map,? University of Maryland Libraries, 
http://sanborn.umi.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/ 
and Charles R. Davis, The First Twenty-Five Years of the City of College Park, (Publishing 
information not available). 
 
 6 
 
 
Figure 2: Site timeline (Author, images from The First Twenty-Five Years of the City of College Park) 
 
Surrounding context 
Current conditions 
The Calvert School site is located in College Park, MD, a suburb of 
Washington, DC.  College Park is about 9 miles NE from the center of the city, just 
inside the Beltway. (Figure 3)  The site is located in the center of the residential 
neighborhood of Calvert Hills.  It is also very close to the main University of 
Maryland campus in College Park, though it is separated from the campus by Route 
1, a major north-south artery. (Figure 4) 
 7 
 
 
Figure 3: Relationship of site to Washington, DC (Live Search Maps) 
 8 
 
 
Figure 4: Local context (Live Search Maps) 
 
Most of the Calvert Hills neighborhood, as well as a number of student 
residences, are located within ? mile of the Calvert School site. (Figure 5)  The 
commercial center of College Park is also within ? mile of the site, and a few other 
local landmarks are located within a ? mile radius.  The Metro/MARC station is less 
than ? mile from the site, as is the southeast corner of the University of Maryland 
College Park campus.  The central campus ?Mall? is located within ? mile of the site. 
(Figure 6) 
 9 
 
 
Figure 5: Walking radii from site (Author, base image from Google Maps) 
 
 
Figure 6: Landmarks (Author, base image from Google Maps) 
 10 
 
A number of community resources are also located within walking distance of 
the Calvert School site. (Figure 7)  The College Park city hall is located within ? mile 
of the site.  Most of the other community resources in the area are located on the 
opposite side of the railroad tracks, between ? - ? mile from the site.  These include 
the Aviation museum and sports facilities such as tennis courts and the Calvert 
Recreation Center.  The recreation center houses a swimming pool and ice rink, and 
serves as the site of a weekly farmers? market. 
 
Figure 7: Community resources (Author, base image from Google Maps) 
 
In addition to these community resources, there are also a number of parks 
and playgrounds within walking distance of the site. (Figure 8)  There is a playground 
and a large play field located on the site itself and Calvert Park and another 
playground are located within ? mile of the site.  Three larger parks (Paint Branch 
 11 
 
Park, Lake Artemesia and the Anacostia River Park) are located within ? - 1 mile of 
the site. 
 
Figure 8: Parks and playgrounds (Author, base image from Google Maps) 
 
Route 1 is the main north-south road through College Park.  It goes south to 
the city and north to the Beltway and beyond, and has a fairly heavy traffic flow.  The 
other major automobile route near the site is Calvert Rd., which runs east-west 
directly in front of the school building, connecting Route 1 to the Metro/MARC 
station.  This road gets more traffic than the quiet neighborhood roads that surround it 
because it is the most direct connection from Route 1 to the station.  The Rhode 
Island Ave. walking/biking trail also runs north-south, crossing over Calvert Rd. at 
about its mid-point. (Figure 9)  Traffic-calming measures have been put in place to 
ensure that this crossing is pedestrian-friendly. 
 12 
 
 
Figure 9: Main transportation routes around site (Author, base image from Google Maps) 
 
A figure-ground diagram of the site and surrounding area (Figure 10) shows 
that the Calvert School building and site are both fairly large compared to the 
immediate context.  While there are larger buildings clustered along Route 1, the 
school building is surrounded by small houses.  This context lends an additional sense 
of importance to the building since, from the site, it reads as the only civic-scale 
building in a field of single-family houses. 
A land use diagram of the same area (Figure 11) highlights similar aspects of 
the surrounding context.  The Calvert School building and site are clearly located in a 
primarily residential neighborhood.  However, the site is also very close to the retail 
area on either side of Route 1.  The only other civic-scale buildings in this area are the 
University of Maryland buildings to the north, approximately 4 blocks away. 
 
 13 
 
 
Figure 10: Figure-ground diagram of site and surrounding area (Author) 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Figure 11: Land use diagram of site and surrounding area (Author) 
 
 14 
 
A digital 3D model of the site and surrounding area (Figure 12) shows the 
character of the building fabric around the site.  Note the fairly low-density residential 
development surrounding the site, and the increase in density along Route 1. 
 
Figure 12: Sketchup model of site (Author, base image from Google Maps) 
 
To the south and east, the site is bordered by typical 1940s-50s-style single-family 
housing.  To the north, it is bordered by a mix of single-family housing, multi-family 
apartment buildings and retail development. 
Historical development 
 
In 1939, the Sanborn Insurance Company created a map of this area which 
shows each building, its lot, and a bit of information about the construction materials 
used. (Figure 13) Because the map was updated in 1959, it shows both the original 
school building and the later addition.  The map identifies the school building as the 
?College Park School.?  The original section of the building is labeled ?Built 1938, 
wood trusses.?  The addition is labeled ?Noncomb. 1954, conc. fl. gyp. rf, on steel 
joists, cin. bl., br. faced walls, susp?d ceil?g?.  A close examination of the map shows 
 15 
 
that the front (northern) portion of the addition was actually built in 1952.  There is a 
note on this section of the map that says ?Cin. bl., br. faced, built 1952?.  This map 
also shows the original path of the stream that ran through this area, directly through 
the site.  This stream is now contained underground. 
 
Figure 13: 1939 Sanborn map (with 1959 update) (1939-1959 Sanborn map) 
 
 
The Sanborn map provides a snapshot of the built context around the school 
as of the time of the last update in 1959.  A comparison of the 1959 and 2009 figure-
 ground diagrams shows that the built context surrounding the Calvert School building 
and site has changed very little over this time. (Figure 14)  The main difference is that 
the 2009 map shows some additional build-up along Route 1. 
 16 
 
 
Figure 14: Historic vs. Current figure-ground diagrams (Author, historic base map from 1939 
Sanborn map) 
 
Future development 
In December 2008, the Prince George?s County Planning Board held a public 
Design and Development Charrette.  One of the products of this charrette was a draft 
illustrative concept plan for Route 1. (Figure 15)  The proposed future changes focus 
mostly on an increase and improvement in the retail buildings lining both sides of 
Route 1.  The Calvert School is located at the very southern end of the area being 
considered in this plan.  A close-up view of the Route 1 draft illustrative concept plan 
(Figure 16) shows that while the Calvert School building is close to some of the 
proposed changes, it is outside of the area of consideration.  No changes are planned 
to its immediate context. 
 17 
 
 
Figure 15: Draft illustrative concept plan for Route 1 (Prince George?s County Planning Board) 
 
 
 
Figure 16: Detail of Route 1 draft illustrative concept plan (Prince George?s County Planning Board) 
 
 
 
 18 
 
Two major future building developments are planned for the area around the 
Calvert School site.  Both are located within ? mile of the site. (Figure 17)  The East 
Campus development to the north of the site is a University of Maryland project that 
is currently moving through the permitting and community review process.  (This 
planned development is included in the Route 1 draft illustrative concept plan shown 
in Figure 15 and Figure 16.)  The Cafritz Site, to the south of the Calvert School site, 
is a private development.  It is currently on hold due to zoning permit denials.  If 
completed, these two planned developments will serve as caps at the north and south 
end of the Rhode Island Ave. walking/biking trail.  This trail, located along the path 
of the trolley which used to connect College Park to Washington, DC, also passes 
close to the Calvert School site (about 1/8 mile from the site). 
 
Figure 17: Major planned developments around site (Author, base image from Google Maps) 
 
 19 
 
Figure 18 shows the vision behind the proposed East Campus redevelopment 
initiative.  The concept is to bring some of the campus community across Route 1.  
This is land that is already owned by the University, but it currently contains just 
scattered support facilities.  The East Campus site plan (Figure 19) shows the 
proposed phasing of the project, as well as proposed land uses.  The first phase of the 
plan envisions a combination of retail and housing, along with a light rail transit 
station.  The second phase focuses mostly on student housing. 
 
Figure 18: East Campus Redevelopment Initiative ? The Vision (East Campus Redevelopment 
Initiative) [the Calvert School site is located off of this map] 
 
 20 
 
 
Figure 19: East Campus Redevelopment Initiative ? Master Plan (East Campus Redevelopment 
Initiative) [the Calvert School site is located off of this map] 
 
The Cafritz site is located to the south of the Calvert School site, between 
three small-scale residential neighborhoods: Calvert Hills, University Park and 
Riverdale Park.  The design proposal for the Cafritz site includes new retail space, 
including a grocery store, dry cleaners and health club, as well as open green space. 
(Figure 20)  The proposed design is planned as a walkable development, with 
pedestrian/bicycle access from the Metro station and surrounding neighborhoods. 
 
 21 
 
 
Figure 20: Cafritz site development plan (Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut & Kuhn Architects) 
 [the Calvert School site is located off of this map] 
 
Site documentation and analysis 
The Calvert School site fills an entire block in the north-south direction.  In 
addition to the building, it includes a playground and large play field, outdoor 
basketball court, and two parking lots. (Figure 21)  There are a number of existing 
trees on the site, including some large, well-established trees. (Figure 22)  Most of the 
existing trees are deciduous.  There are six coniferous trees, but these are not very 
healthy, and may need to be removed regardless of whether they are accommodated 
by the new site plan.
 22 
 
 
Figure 21: Site plan (Author) 
 23 
 
 
Figure 22: Existing trees on site (Author) 
 
 The topography of the site is generally very flat.  A topographical map of the 
area showing changes in elevation at a scale of 10 feet shows no change in elevation 
across the site. (Figure 23)  However, a close observation of the site shows that there 
is, in fact, a drop of about 2.5 feet from the northwest corner to the southeast corner 
of the site. 
 While there is currently no above-ground water on the site, the 1939 Sanborn 
Fire Insurance map shows that there was, historically, a creek that flowed across the 
site. (Figure 24)  The creek has since been contained in pipes and moved 
underground, however water is still an important issue for the site, which floods 
easily in heavy rain. 
 24 
 
 
Figure 23: Site topography (Author, based on information from a U.S. Geological Survey GIS map) 
 
 
 
Figure 24: Historical water path (Author, based on information from the 1939 Sanborn Map) 
 
 
 25 
 
Most visitors approach the building from the northwest as they pull into the 
visitor parking lot on the west side of the school.  Looking to the site from this angle, 
the view is dominated by the massing of the original 1938 school building. (Figure 
25) 
 
Figure 25: View to site from the northwest (Author) 
 
If, on the other hand, a visitor approaches from the northeast (perhaps walking 
from the Metro station), the 1952/1954 addition is clearly visible in the foreground, 
with the original 1938 building in the background. (Figure 26)  While both sections of 
the building have only one above-ground floor, there is a significant height difference 
between the two pieces of the building, because the upper level of the 1938 building 
is raised by half a story.  This may have been to give the building more prominence as 
an important civic building, but it probably had more to do with the tendency of this 
area to flood easily.  Many of the surrounding houses have a raised first story as well. 
 
 26 
 
 
Figure 26: View to site from the northeast (Author) 
 
Views to the site from the south are dominated by the playground and play 
field on the site.  Looking toward the building from the southwest, one looks out 
across the Calvert Hills playground. (Figure 27)  From this angle, the building does 
not present a prominent fa?ade, instead fading into the background behind the trees 
and playground equipment.  Looking toward the building from the southeast, one 
looks out across the play field and across the basketball court. (Figure 28)  When the 
building was in use as a school, the play field was frequently used for soccer matches 
and other organized sports for elementary-age children.  It was also used as a play 
field during recess on school days.  It is still used on the weekends for soccer 
practices and matches, but is now primarily used as a dog-walking area by local 
residents.  On sunny days, students from the university also use it for informal games 
of frisbee and baseball.  The basketball court behind the building is frequently used 
by university students. 
 
 27 
 
 
Figure 27: View to site from the southwest (Author) 
 
 
Figure 28: View to site from the southeast (Author) 
 28 
 
Views from the building toward these outdoor site features show the 
relationship of the building to the site, and to the context beyond.  Looking from the 
ramp at the back (south) of the building towards the Calvert Hills playground to the 
southwest, one can see the network of pathways that cut across the site, linking the 
building to the playground and the sidewalk on Guilford Road beyond. (Figure 29)  
When the building was in use as a school, this ramp was used as access to the 
playground and play field during recess. From the top of the ramp looking toward the 
southeast, one can see the basketball court and the play field, as well as the 
neighborhood beyond. (Figure 30)  This field is in use throughout the day as an area 
for dog walking. 
 
 
Figure 29: View from site to the southwest (Author) 
 
 
 29 
 
 
Figure 30: View from site to the southeast (Author) 
 
 
Looking out from the front (north) door of the school building, one can see 
how Princeton Ave. curves away. (Figure 31)  This means that visitors always 
approach the building on the oblique, rather than on axis, whether walking or driving.  
The view from the front door includes the apartment building that appears in the 
historical 1949 photo (Figure 2) and a large parking lot associated with the nearby 
office park.  Looking to the northwest from the building?s front door, one sees the 
corner of the school parking lot and the path that most visitors used to get from the 
parking lot to the school entrance. (Figure 32)  Across Calvert Ave., the office park 
and its parking lot are visible behind a screen of trees on the Calvert School site. 
 30 
 
 
Figure 31: View from site to the north (Author) 
 
 
Figure 32: View from site to the northwest (Author) 
 
 31 
 
Building documentation and analysis 
The north elevation (Figure 33) is the primary elevation of the original 1938 
building.  While the original building does have a facade that speaks to its function as 
a civic building, the later addition does not.  City offices are now located in this 
northern piece of the addition.  The south elevation (Figure 34) of both the original 
building and the addition is fairly closed to the park behind.  There are three entrances 
on this side, but only two small windows.  The classroom windows open up to a 
paved courtyard space rather than the rear of the building. 
The building?s west elevation (Figure 35) is original to the 1938 building.  It 
is a fairly interesting facade, with quite a number of windows for the classrooms and 
lower level spaces, as well as a chimney that serves the basement furnace.  This 
facade faces the building?s main parking lot.  The east elevation (Figure 36) is made 
up entirely of the 1952/1954 additions.  It reads largely as a service facade, and faces 
a small parking lot that also serves the building. 
The building materials used in the Calvert School building (Figure 37) are 
fairly typical of this area of Maryland.  The building is faced in red brick.  The bricks 
are turned every seven rows to create horizontal bands in the facade.  The trim around 
the windows, doors and roof are mostly painted white, though the classroom windows 
are shaded and trimmed with a red-painted wood.  The roof is covered in gray 
shingles.  The building also has metal accents such as the ramp handrail and some 
window grills. 
 32 
 
 
Figure 33: Building elevation ? north (Author) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 34: Building elevation ? south (Author) 
 
 
Figure 35: Building elevation ? west (Author) 
 
 
 
Figure 36: Building elevation ? east (Author)
 33 
 
The building materials used in the surrounding neighborhoods (Figure 38) are 
very similar to those used in the Calvert School building.  Most houses are made of 
brick.  Some are painted, but many still show the natural color of the brick.  Many of 
the houses still have the older style of windows with many small panes that are used 
on the older sections of the school building, but some have the larger single-pane 
glass used on school building?s newer windows.  Most of the roofs in the 
neighborhood are covered in grey shingle similar to that used on the school, and 
many have white columns and porches similar to that on the school?s main entrance, 
though different in scale.  Vinyl siding is also common in the surrounding 
neighborhood, particularly for later additions to the houses. 
 
 
Figure 37: Materiality ? Calvert School building (Author) 
 
 
Figure 38: Materiality ? surrounding context (Author) 
 34 
 
A comparison of the original floor plan to the existing building shows that it is 
largely unchanged.  The upper floor was designed with only six classrooms. (Figure 
39)  The later addition was simply attached to the stairwell on the side of the building.  
The original lower level floor plan shows the arrangement of some of the building?s 
mechanical systems. (Figure 40)  Interestingly, there are no classrooms on this lower 
level, which may have been (and may still be) prone to flooding. The plan for the 
1954 addition shows that the northern piece, which was probably built in 1952, was 
originally in use as a library. (Figure 41)  The addition added four additional 
classrooms, as well as some additional office and storage space. 
Scaled renderings of the original floor plans show that each of the six 
classrooms in the original building is roughly 40 x 30 ft.  Each also has a large closet.  
They are arranged symmetrically around a central axis that extends the length of the 
building.  The upper floor of the original building was almost entirely devoted to 
classroom space. (Figure 42)  The only exceptions are a small office and boys and 
girls restrooms.  On the lower level of the original building, the largest room is a 
multi-purpose room, which is roughly 40 x 100 ft. (Figure 43)  The rest of the lower 
level is devoted to office, storage and mechanical space.  The addition?s four 
classrooms are roughly 40 x 40 ft. (Figure 44)  Classrooms 1 and 2 are connected by a 
small passageway between them, as are classrooms 3 and 4.  The classrooms in the 
addition are equipped with sinks and restrooms right inside the classrooms. 
 
 35 
 
 
Figure 39: Calvert School upper level floor plan (College Park city engineer) 
 
 
 
 
Figure 40: Calvert School lower level floor plan (College Park city engineer) 
 
 36 
 
 
Figure 41: Calvert School addition floor plan (College Park city engineer) 
 
 
 
 
Figure 42: CAD drawing of Calvert School upper level floor plan (Author) 
 
 37 
 
 
Figure 43: CAD drawing of Calvert School lower level floor plan (Author) 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 44: CAD drawing of Calvert School addition floor plan (Author) 
The main hallway of the original 1938 building is the main axis of the 
building, travelling straight from the front door to the back door, and bisecting the 
 38 
 
building. (Figure 45)  It is a fairly wide hallway.  The light from the stairway can be 
seen coming through the doorway on the left.  
 
Figure 45: Interior photo ? main hallway (Author) 
 
The interior staircase is the point of connection between the original building 
and the later additions. (Figure 46)  The addition is half a story down from the upper 
level of the original building (the first landing on the staircase, shown in Figure 46).  
The staircase then continues an additional half-story down to the lower level of the 
main building. 
 
 39 
 
 
Figure 46: Interior photo ? staircase (Author) 
 
The main hallway of the addition is arranged similarly to that in the main 
building, with classrooms arranged symmetrically on either site.  The scale of this 
hallway is slightly less generous, particularly in terms of height, and it suffers from a 
lack of natural light. (Figure 47) 
 40 
 
 
Figure 47: Interior photo ? main hallway of 1954 addition (Author) 
 
Each of the classrooms in the original building receives a lot of natural light 
from a row of windows along the long wall.  However, on the west side of the 
building, the glare can get very strong.  Mechanical systems and radiators are exposed 
in these areas. (Figure 48) The classrooms in the addition are similar to those in the 
main building.  Each receives natural light from a row of windows along the long 
wall. (Figure 49)  The interior finishes throughout the school building are showing 
wear. 
 41 
 
 
 
Figure 48: Interior photo ? upper level classroom (Author) 
 
 
 
Figure 49: Interior photo ? classroom in 1954 addition (Author) 
 
 42 
 
The multipurpose room on the lower level is the largest space in the building, 
but it has been separated with dividers to create some separate spaces. (Figure 50)  
This space has been used in the past for community meetings. 
 
 
Figure 50: Interior photo ? lower level (Author) 
 
The playground on the site is a public playground owned by the city of College Park. 
(Figure 51)  It has three distinct areas: a section for very young children, a jungle gym 
section for older children (Figure 52), and a swing set.  When the building was in use 
as a school, this playground was used every day during recess.  While it now sees less 
use, on nice days it is still frequently used by families from the surrounding 
neighborhood, and occasionally by university students. 
 
 
 43 
 
 
Figure 51: Calvert Hills playground (Author) 
 
 
 
 
Figure 52: Calvert Hills playground ? jungle gym (Author) 
 
 
 
 44 
 
 
Figure 53: Calvert Hills playground ? basketball court and play field (Author) 
 
 45 
 
Chapter 3: Program Analysis 
Proposed building program 
The Old Town and Calvert Hills neighborhoods of College Park (Figure 54) are fairly 
tight-knit, active communities.  However, they currently lack venues for community 
activities. 
 
Figure 54: Map showing site in relation to Old Town and Calvert Hills neighborhoods (Author, base 
image of City of College Park by Charles P. Johnson & Associates) 
 
Even when abandoned, the Calvert School Building serves as an informal location for 
many community activities.  The playground, basketball court, and field still serve as 
gathering places and centers of community activity.  The building is even 
occasionally opened up so that a town meeting can be held inside.  I propose that the 
building be adapted and reused to serve as a community center for College Park, 
while the site is maintained and improved as a site for the activities that it currently 
hosts. 
 46 
 
In addition to the community center program, I propose that the building be 
adapted and reused to house the College Park city hall.  College Park?s city hall is 
currently housed in a non-descript building (Figure 55) a couple of blocks north of the 
 
Figure 55: College Park city hall (The Historical Marker Database16) 
 
Calvert School site. (Figure 56)  The current city hall building lacks both program 
space for community activities and a strong civic presence.  An aerial view of the city 
hall shows that it is located in the center of a parking lot behind a row of one-story 
retail on Route 1. (Figure 57)  The front door faces the back entrance to a haircutter 
and a sandwich shop.  The entrance to the current city hall from the street is 
barricaded and unwelcoming (Figure 58), forcing visitors to enter the site from the 
back, through the surrounding parking lot. 
 The main building on the Calvert School site has a much stronger presence as 
a civic building, both in terms of fa?ade and approach.  I believe that it will be a much 
more appropriate location for the city?s government seat, and including this program 
on the site will help to activate it further as the center of community in College Park. 
                                                 
16 Anacostia Trails Heritage Area, ?College Park City Hall.? The Historical Marker Database, 
http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=13161. 
 47 
 
 
Figure 56: Current location of city hall (Author) 
 
 
 
Figure 57: Aerial view of city hall (Google Maps) 
 
 48 
 
 
Figure 58: Entrance to city hall from town center (Google Maps street view) 
 
 
 
Figure 59: Calvert School building - civic fa?ade (Author) 
 
 49 
 
Program precedents 
Gleneagles Community Center 
Patkau Architects, West Vancouver, British Columbia (2000-2003) 
 
The designers of the Gleneagles Community Center limited the building?s 
footprint by spreading the program across three levels.17  Because of the steep slope 
of the site, the Gleneagles building has a very dynamic section, with entrances to the 
building occurring on different levels. (Figure 60) 
 
Figure 60: Gleneagles Community Center - building section (Patkau Architects) 
 
On the lower level, the program includes a gymnasium, multipurpose room, 
youth room, arts room, workshop, and a fair amount of outdoor terrace space. (Figure 
64)  The entrance to the community center at this level is sheltered but welcoming.  A 
number of entrance doors opening onto green space allow free movement in and out 
of the building. (Figure 61)  The main (intermediate) level contains the street 
entrance, which is also sheltered by an overhanging porch. (Figure 62).  The program 
on this level includes a ?community living room,? which provides an informal 
gathering place at the entrance to the building, as well as a cafe, meeting room, 
administration, child care, and a children?s playground. (Figure 65) 
                                                 
17 Patkau Architects, Patkau Architects (New York, NY: The Monacelli Press, Inc, 2006), p165 
 50 
 
 
Figure 61: Gleneagles Community Center ? exterior (Patkau Architects) 
 
The program on the upper level is focused on fitness facilities, with a training 
studio and fitness equipment area as well as a room for counseling services. (Figure 
66)  The large volume of the gymnasium rises the entire height of the building, 
allowing a visual connection between this space and many of the others in the 
community center. (Figure 63)  This height also creates a very open and light feeling 
throughout this space and the others that are visually connected to it. 
 51 
 
The Gleneagles Community Center provides a very relevant precedent in 
terms of program elements that would be appropriate for the proposed community 
center on the Calvert School site.  Gleneagles is particularly relevant as a precedent 
for this project because of the similarity in scale between the two buildings. 
 
Figure 62: Gleneagles Community Center ? exterior (Patkau Architects) 
 
 52 
 
 
Figure 63: Gleneagles Community Center ? gymnasium (Patkau Architects) 
 
 53 
 
 
Figure 64: Gleneagles Community Center ? lower level plan (Patkau Architects) 
 
 
 
Figure 65: Gleneagles Community Center ? main level plan (Patkau Architects) 
 
 
Figure 66: Gleneagles Community Center ? upper level plan (Patkau Architects) 
 
 54 
 
Plummer Park Community Center 
Koning Eizenberg Architecture, West Hollywood, CA (2000) 
 
The designers of the Plummer Park Community Center were hired by the 
community to revitalize their existing community center.  The initial plan was to 
renovate the original building for senior services, and to add a separate facility for 
teens.  However, after studying the building and its surroundings, the designers 
suggested that the community rethink this approach.  Instead, they proposed a single 
facility that would house the intergenerational facilities under one roof, creating a 
building program that was both more inclusive and more flexible.18 (Figure 68) 
The resulting building is organized with the teen lounge on one end of the 
building and the senior lounge on the other, with senior services in between, grouped 
around the senior lounge.  The design team also intervened outside of the building, 
adding a new tree-lined parking lot that runs the length of the building.  The designers 
explain: 
It was designed not only to bring a sense of the park to the street but 
also to acknowledge that people really use these places.  Although 
often ignored, parking lots are real and important zones of activity.  
For buildings like community centers, they are key social spaces ? as 
important as interior spaces ? where people linger and continue 
conversations and encounters started indoors.19 
 
The intergenerational tensions that the designers dealt with in this project are 
sure to arise in a community center project based in College Park as well.  The 
designers? attitude of inclusivity and integration is laudable and should be considered, 
and perhaps even pushed further, as a response to the town-gown tensions that exist 
in the community of College Park. 
                                                 
18 Koning Eizenberg Architecture, Architecture isn?t just for special occasions., (New York, NY: The 
Monacelli Press, Inc, 2006), 43. 
19 Ibid, 44. 
 55 
 
 
 56 
 
Figure 67: Plummer Park Community Center ? exterior (Koning Eizenberg Architecture) 
 
Figure 68: Plummer Park Community Center ? site plan (Koning Eizenberg Architecture) 
 
 
 
 
 
 57 
 
West Street Community Center 
Koning Eizenberg Architecture, New York, NY (2002) 
 
Two years after designing the renovation of the Plummer Park Community 
Center, Koning Eizenberg was asked to submit an ?exploratory proposition? for a 
project which would suggest new opportunities for the devastated community of 
Manhattan, one year after the World Trade Center fell. 20  A number of designers took 
part in the project, with each team focusing on a different element of community life, 
such as housing, offices and retail, hotels, a library, and a community center.  The 
Koning Eizenberg team explored a proposition for a new community center, with a 
program that included recreation facilities, room for teens and younger kids, a 
community conference center, neighborhood retail (including a big bookstore, cafes 
and a farmers market), a winter garden, senior center and senior housing.21   
The design exercise did not move past the diagrammatic stage, and the scale 
of this project is much larger than could be accommodated by the Calvert School site.  
Nevertheless, this exploration is relevant to the project at hand in terms of the 
program elements that were selected as vital elements of an effort at community 
(re)building. 
 
                                                 
20 Koning Eizenberg Architecture, Architecture isn?t just for special occasions, (New York, NY: The 
Monacelli Press, Inc, 2006), 185. 
21 Koning Eizenberg Architecture, Architecture isn?t just for special occasions, (New York, NY: The 
Monacelli Press, Inc, 2006), 185. 
 58 
 
 
Figure 69: West Street Community Center ? exterior perspective 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 59 
 
Proposed Salk Institute Campus Community Center 
Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA) competition, La  Jolla, CA 
(2008-2009) 
 
The 2008-2009 ACSA ?Preservation as Provocation? competition challenges 
architecture students to rethink Louis Kahn?s iconic Salk Institute.  The Institute is in 
need of additional space, as well as additional amenities to ?support the needs of 
scientists and employees.?22  Part of the proposed new program for the site is a 
community center, which ?will support the science and operational needs of the 
Institute.? 23  The program for the campus community center includes a library, 
conference facilities, offices, a dining facility, lounge, and employee exercise 
facilities. 
While this precedent cannot offer guidance in terms of adjacencies and design, 
it does have a very clear and complete set of program requirements, which may prove 
to be very helpful in determining the exact program requirements for a new 
community center in College Park.  It is important to note, however, that because the 
proposed Salk Institute campus community center is significantly larger than the 
current area of the Calvert School buildings, the size of some program elements may 
need to be reconsidered in order to make them more appropriate for the site. 
                                                 
22 https://www.acsa-arch.org/competitions/08-09%20Comp/08-
 09%20Preservation%20Comp%20Salk%20-%20PROGRAM.pdf [Need to format footnote properly] 
23 https://www.acsa-arch.org/competitions/08-09%20Comp/08-
 09%20Preservation%20Comp%20Salk%20-%20PROGRAM.pdf [Need to format footnote properly] 
 60 
 
 
Figure 70: Proposed Salk Institute campus community center ? program (ACSA) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 61 
 
Program development 
 Before developing the program, it is important to decide which community the 
community center will serve.  The city of College Park suffers from a problem 
common among college towns.  The city?s population is split almost evenly between 
college-age residents and families, seniors and other more permanent residents.  
Table 1 summarizes the national census age data for the 20740 (College Park) zip 
code. 
Table 1: Census 2000 age data for 20740 zip code (Author, with data from Census 200024) 
 
Percent of total population 
Under 18 years 11.2 
18 to 24 years 44.6 
25 to 44 years 22.6 
45 to 64 years 13.4 
65 years and over 8.4 
 
Median age (years) 22.7 
 
This data shows that the largest segment of the population of 20740 by far 
(nearly half of the total population) is the 18-24 age group, which is likely made up 
mostly of University of Maryland students.  Table 2 shows the data for the College 
Park zip code along with the same data for all of the surrounding zip codes.  The 18-
 24 year-old population in College Park is much higher than that of any surrounding 
zip code. 
 
                                                 
24 http://factfinder.census.gov/ 
 62 
 
Table 2: Census 2000 age data for 207xx zip codes (Census 200025) 
 
  
 
                                                 
25 http://factfinder.census.gov/ 
 63 
 
The proposed community center for will strive to serve the varied 
constituencies that make up the College Park community, and to provide a place for 
them to meet and to interact.  Because the University of Maryland students are well-
 served by a community center of their own, the center will focus primarily on the 
needs of the permanent residents of the College Park community.  However, it will 
also attempt to bridge the town/gown divide in the city of College Park by creating 
opportunities for positive interaction between university students and the more 
permanent residents of the College Park community. 
Rather than set aside isolated spaces designed specifically for this purpose, the 
goal will be to design both individual building program elements and the overall 
experience of the building to encourage this kind of interaction.  For example, a 
senior lounge and activity area will provide not only a social gathering space for 
seniors, but also a place for senior training, health information sessions, etc. that 
could be organized in conjunction with the University?s School of Public Health to 
bring in students as educators and helpers.  A child care center will provide an 
important community service for families in College Park, while providing 
opportunities for training and hands-on experience for students in the University?s 
School of Education.  Through these programs, university students will have an 
opportunity to form positive bonds with area residents, while learning and practicing 
their chosen fields of study.  In this way, one program space can serve the needs of 
the permanent community of College Park, while also serving as a venue for 
improved communication between students and city residents. 
 
 64 
 
 The following list of proposed program elements is based on an analysis of 
the needs of the College Park community and study of the community center 
precedents presented earlier in this chapter. 
Proposed program elements 
Indoor 
? Community ?living room? (informal gathering space) 
? Cafe 
? Multipurpose room(s) 
? Meeting room(s) 
? Arts room 
? Child care 
? Senior lounge/activity area 
? Teen/youth lounge/activity area 
? Gymnasium 
? Offices/administration areas 
? Town hall functions 
? Library 
 
Outdoor 
? Sports fields 
? Playground 
? Child care activity area 
? Park/outdoor space appropriate for adult use 
 
While the site plan for the new community center will include some parking for 
employees, disabled visitors, and child care pick up/drop off, the amount of parking 
on site will be dramatically reduced.  This decision is based on an analysis of the 
parking options available near the site (Figure 71) which shows that there is plenty of 
parking available within a short walk of the site. 
 65 
 
 
Figure 71: Parking options near the Calvert School site (Author) 
 
 Table 3 explores the appropriate floor area to devote to each program element, 
based on the program precedent projects presented at the beginning of this chapter.  
West Street Community Center has been excluded from this table because the design 
was diagrammatic, and was never developed to this level of detail.  Only the senior 
and teen areas from the Plummer Park Community center are included in the table 
because these are the only program areas identified on the designers? floor plan. 
 The figures from this table were analyzed and developed further to create a 
final proposed program, which groups the program elements into three main program 
areas: A Home for Community, Town Hall, and Exercise & Activity. (Figure 72)  
This program was then analyzed to better understand the requirements and 
characteristics of each of the program elements.  (Figure 73 and Figure 74) 
 66 
 
 
Table 3: Floor area for proposed program elements (Author) 
Proposed 
building 
elements 
Gleneagles 
Community 
Center 
Plummer Park 
Community 
Center 
Salk Institute 
proposed 
community center 
College Park 
Community 
Center 
(proposed) 
Indoor     
Community 
?living room? 730 sf -- N/A 750 sf 
Library/lounge N/A -- 4,410 sf (Stacks: 1,500 sf) 300 sf 
Cafe 300 sf -- 3,900 sf 300 sf 
Multipurpose 
room(s) 1,300 sf -- 
3,000 sf 
(3 @ 1,000 each) N/A 
Meeting 
room(s) N/A -- 
2,000 sf 
(2 @ 1,000 each) 2 @ 250 sf 
Tutoring room N/A --  500 sf 
Child care 1,000 sf -- N/A 1,000 sf 
Teen/student 
lounge 400 sf 600 sf N/A 500 sf 
Senior lounge N/A 500 sf N/A 500 sf 
Art studio 1,000 sf -- N/A 1,000 sf 
Reception 250 sf -- N/A 150 sf 
Offices/adminis
 tration areas 500 sf -- 3,450 sf 2 @ 500 sf 
Town hall 
functions N/A -- N/A 12,250 sf 
Gymnasium 4,500 sf -- 1,000 sf 7,000 sf 
Classrooms N/A -- 3,450 sf 2 @ 250 sf 
Aerobics 
equipment 2,500 sf -- N/A 500 sf 
Weight training 650 sf -- 4,410 sf (Stacks: 1,500 sf) 500 sf 
Total area 
(gross) 34,500 sf 11,000 sf 30,800 sf 31,000 sf 
Current gross area of existing Calvert School building (original building + addition) = 20,837 sf 
 
Outdoor     
Sports fields N/A -- N/A 60,000 sf 
Playground 1,200 sf -- N/A 15,000 sf 
Child care 
activity area 600 sf -- N/A 600 sf 
Park N/A -- N/A 
~2,000 sf 
(will vary by 
scheme) 
 
 67 
 
 
Figure 72: Proposed program (Author) 
 68 
 
 
Figure 73: Program analysis ? proposed vs. existing sf (Author)
 69 
 
  
 
Figure 74: Analysis of proposed program (Author) 
 
 70 
 
Chapter 4: Architectural Design Strategy 
Adaptive reuse strategies 
In order to create a conceptual framework to understand the vast array of 
adaptive reuse strategies that are available to a designer, it is helpful to define a few 
categories or types of subsequent action into which all projects can be sorted.  As a 
starting point, I will adopt a simplified version of the taxonomy of variables defined 
by Garth Rockcastle for the Subsequent Action exhibit at the University of 
Maryland.26 
Physical actions 
 The actions that designers take to develop or transform a building during the 
process of adaptation for reuse can be divided into four categories: 
? Addition (of new or alternative material) 
? Subtraction (of existing material) 
? Alteration (partial modification of material) 
? Recombination (rearrangement of material) 
While some projects may fall into just one of these categories, most will use a 
combination of some or all of these strategies.  Nonetheless, the enumeration of 
distinct categories of action is useful to create a conceptual framework to understand 
the design moves that are employed in adaptive reuse projects. 
                                                 
26 http://publications.ingagepublication.com/UMDSAEXHIBIT/digitalpublication.php 
 71 
 
Attitude 
 The range of possible approaches to an adaptive reuse project may be further 
clarified by an additional categorization of what I will call ?attitude? (these are a 
subset of the variables that Rockcastle identifies as ?backgrounds): 
? Similar (substantially like) 
? Complimentary (in ways related to) 
? Contrasting (substantially different) 
As in the case of the variables of physical action, one project may encompass some or 
all of these attitudes within the range of actions taken.  However, it may be useful to 
identify a project?s primary attitude, in order to clarify its design intentions. 
Matrix of design variables 
 Combining the variables of physical action and attitude creates a matrix of 
design variables into which any adaptive reuse project can be placed: 
Table 4: Matrix of design variables (Author) 
 Similar Complimentary Contrasting 
Addition    
Subtraction    
Alteration    
Recombination    
 
Some projects will not fit neatly into one cell of this matrix.  However, for most 
projects, a dominant strategy in terms of physical action and attitude will be 
identifiable, and can be used for appropriate categorization. 
 72 
 
Design strategy precedents 
Porter House 
SHoP architects, New York, NY, 2003 
 At Porter House, SHoP architects renovated a 30,000 sf warehouse for 
conversion to condominiums.  They preserved the historic shell of the existing 
building, and added an additional 15,000 sf through an addition attached to the roof 
and cantilevered over the adjacent building.27  The facade of the new addition, made 
of zinc and glass, presents a striking contrast to the historic brick facade. (Figure 75) 
 
Figure 75: Porter House (SHoP architects)28 
 
                                                 
27 http://www.architecture-page.com/go/projects/porter-house 
28 http://www.chi-athenaeum.org/archawards/2005/2005photos/PorterHouse.jpg 
 73 
 
Jim Rouse Visionary Center 
Cho Benn Hollback + Assoc., Baltimore, MD  
2004 
 As an imaginative expansion to the American Visionary Art Museum in 
Baltimore, Cho Benn Hollback + Associates adapted and renovated an abandoned 
1936 whiskey barrel warehouse to create exhibit, classroom and 
conference/performance space.29  The designers recycled not only the shell of the 
existing building, but recycled and repurposed some of the interior elements as well.  
The wood timber structure that was originally used to hold stacked kegs of whiskey 
was removed, reconfigured, and reassembled to serve as new interior space dividers. 
(Figure 76)  Whisky barrel staves were repurposed for use as interior wall coverings. 
(Figure 77)  By imaginatively repurposing these original interior elements the 
designers were able to create a very interesting and layered interior while saving 
materials and retaining a visual memory of the building?s past. 
 
Figure 76: Wood timber structure reused as space divider (Cho Ben Hollback + Assoc.)30 
 
                                                 
29 Garth Rockcastle, ?Subsequent Action,? University of Maryland Exhibit Catalog, 
http://publications.ingagepublication.com/UMDSAEXHIBIT/digitalpublication.php. 
30 Cho Benn Holback + Assoc., ?Rouse Visionary Center,? 
http://www.cbhassociates.com/projects/archive/cultural/museums/avam.htm. 
 74 
 
 
Figure 77: Barrel staves reused as interior walls (Cho Ben Hollback + Assoc.)31 
 
New York Blood Center 
Ehrekrantz, Eckstut & Kuhn, Long Island City, 
NY, 2007 
 In this project, Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut & Kuhn transformed a 1960s warehouse 
in Queens into a new blood center for New York.  The building?s large-span steel 
structural system, masonry exterior walls, and fenestration were all reused and found 
to be remarkably efficient for the new use.32  The original bones and organization of 
the building still read clearly though the new insertions/alterations. 
 
Figure 78: New York Blood Center (Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut & Kuhn)33 
 
                                                 
31 Garth Rockcastle, ?Subsequent Action,? University of Maryland Exhibit Catalog, 
http://publications.ingagepublication.com/UMDSAEXHIBIT/digitalpublication.php. 
32 Ibid. 
33 Ibid. 
 75 
 
Design development 
Initial schemes 
The design process began with an exploration of how the proposed program could fit 
into the site and the existing building.  This exploration was organized around the 
adaptive reuse strategy matrix that was used to analyze the precedents presented 
above.  However, it focuses only on the ?physical actions? axis, disregarding the 
more style-based ?attitude? axis at this early phase of the design process. 
 The first scheme (Figure 79) focuses on a strategy of addition, maintaining all 
of the existing buildings and programmed outdoor spaces on the site, and simply 
adding to them.  The blue, red and yellow shading within the building outlines 
corresponds to the color scheme established in the program analysis diagram in 
Figure 73, and indicates where the major program areas are located. 
 
Figure 79: Initial scheme ?Addition (Author) 
 
 76 
 
The second proposal focuses on subtraction as a design strategy.  In this 
scheme, only the historic 1938 building is retained, while the 1952-1954 addition 
(which is less significant, both in terms of historic and aesthetic value) is subtracted. 
 
Figure 80: Initial schemes ? Subtraction, 1st floor (Author) 
 
 
Figure 81: Initial schemes - Subtraction, 2nd  floor (Author) 
 
 77 
 
The third strategy is one of alteration.  All of the current buildings on site are 
retained, but they are altered and expanded to accommodate the larger program 
proposed for the community center.  The programmed outdoor spaces are also altered 
and moved to different areas of the site. 
 
Figure 82: Initial schemes - Alteration, 1st floor (Author) 
 
 
Figure 83: Initial schemes - Alteration, 2nd floor (Author) 
 
 78 
 
The fourth strategy is another take on alteration.  This design takes its 
inspiration from the Gleneagles precedent, putting the gymnasium in a central 
location where it can be overlooked by the other program elements and can serve as a 
central gathering place. 
 
Figure 84: Initial schemes - Alteration 2, 1st floor (Author) 
 
 
Figure 85: Initial schemes - Alteration 2, 2nd floor (Author) 
 
 79 
 
The final of the initial schemes employs a strategy of recombination.  The 
original 1938 building is retained, and the 1952 section of the addition is extracted 
from the current composition, resulting in a different site strategy and a new passage 
between the buildings.  The removed material is recombined to form a new addition. 
 
Figure 86: Initial schemes - Recombination, 1st floor (Author) 
 
 
Figure 87: Initial schemes - Recombination, 2nd floor (Author) 
 
 80 
 
Scheme development 
The initial set of site proposals was largely constrained by the established 
program proposal.  In order to free the design process from these constraints, the 
design process was shifted at this point to a series of freehand explorations of 
different site strategies.  Each strategy was named according to the organizing 
concept around which it was developed. 
 
Figure 88: The Walk (Author) 
 
The Walk (Figure 88): This design focused on creating a connection between the 
neighborhoods to the north and south of the site.  This connection took the form of 
The Walk, a public promenade that created a visible connection between the 
neighborhoods and a public gathering space in front of the main building for festivals, 
farmers markets and even protests.  This scheme maintained the historic 1938 
 81 
 
building and incorporated a new building shaped as its mirror image.  It also added a 
few other small buildings to create a semi-private courtyard on the east side of the 
site, and a strong cross-axis across the site 
 
Figure 89: The Walk/The Quad (Author) 
 
The Walk/The Quad (Figure 89): This scheme combined the concept of The Walk 
with the creation of a more intimate Quad-like space that could be used for smaller 
gatherings.  In this scheme, an addition is placed at the southern end of the 1938 
building to front The Quad and create a symmetrical fa?ade facing The Walk and a 
compression and expansion of space across The Walk, in conjunction with the large 
building on the other side.  The form of The Walk in this scheme is changed to 
respond to the geometries of the site and surrounding neighborhood. 
 82 
 
 
Figure 90: Porches (Author) 
 
Porches (Figure 90): This site plan retains The Walk in its revised form from the 
previous scheme.  However, the main focus of this scheme is on the creation of 
Porches, interstitial spaces between indoor and outdoor rooms where informal 
interactions can take place.  It takes its inspiration from traditional porches, common 
in the vernacular architecture surrounding the site.  The porches of the neighborhood 
houses serve as gathering places and symbols of community.  This scheme suggests 
that the new community center might benefit from the inclusion of covered outdoor 
spaces that reference the traditional porch form and attempt to replicate its success in 
creating informal areas for community interaction. 
 83 
 
 
Figure 91: Town Square (Author) 
 
Town Square (Figure 91): The Town Square scheme also retains the notion of The 
Walk, changing its form yet again to present a different response to the geometries of 
the site and surrounding context.  This scheme again mirrors the form of the historic 
1938 building, creating a large civic building which fronts The Walk and a large green 
space conceived of as a town square.  This scheme cuts two new streets through the 
site to increase the porosity of the block.  The town square is a large green space open 
on all sides to the larger community, rather than contained by the forms of the 
community center?s buildings.  The connection between the old and new buildings in 
this scheme becomes a focal point, and a new ceremonial entrance to the community 
center and the more contained, semi-private outdoor space behind the building. 
 84 
 
 
Figure 92: The Lawn 1 (Author) 
 
The Lawn 1 (Figure 92): This design groups the buildings on the northern part of the 
site, preserving the southern portion for a large green space.  Variety of outdoor space 
is created by the contrast between the formality of the lawn element contained within 
the building forms and the less-structured concept of a lawn on the southern end of 
the site.  In this scheme, only the ?head house? element of the original 1938 building 
is retained.  The buildings are visually and spatially tied together with a series of 
colonnades, which create outdoor spaces similar to the porches discussed in a 
previous scheme.  A strict symmetry of the built forms is maintained around the 
perimeter of the formal lawn, but this stricture is relaxed around the outside edges, 
allowing for changes in the building sizes to accommodate different program 
elements.  A connection is made between the neighborhoods to the north and south of 
 85 
 
the site, but it is at a much smaller, less-ceremonial scale than in the previous 
schemes. 
 
Figure 93: The Lawn 2 (Author) 
 
The Lawn 2 (Figure 93): This scheme is a variation on the first Lawn scheme.  In this 
design, the formal lawn element is eliminated, and only the less-structured lawn on 
the southern half of the site is retained.  The formal outdoor space in this scheme is 
defined by paved plazas rather than a formal green space.  The entire historic 1938 
building is retained, and is flanked on either side by a new building.  Here again, 
symmetry is maintained only on the inner face of these buildings, while the outer 
edge is allowed to shift to accommodate different program elements.  As in the 
previous scheme, a smaller-scale connection is made across the green space to 
connect the neighborhoods on the north and south sides of the site. 
 86 
 
Scheme synthesis/refinement 
In the next stage of the design process, the set of site proposals that had been 
developed was considered, tested and revised through a series of stages of scheme 
development, synthesis and refinement.  During this process, two of the main 
organizing concepts began to emerge as the most compelling site solutions: Town 
Square and The Lawn.  Each of these concepts was tested further in different 
configurations and in combination with The Walk concept, though drawings and 
models. 
 
Figure 94: Scheme development - The Lawn (Author) 
 
 
 
Figure 95: Scheme development - Town Square (Author) 
 
 
 87 
 
 
Figure 96: Scheme synthesis/refinement - drawings (Author) 
 
 
Figure 97: Scheme synthesis/refinement - models (Author) 
 
 88 
 
Design solutions 
After consultation with my thesis committee, I decided to continue to develop 
the two most promising design solutions through to the public review, rather than 
narrowing it down to one.  The committee felt that this would be a rare opportunity to 
develop two different schemes to a high level of resolution, and a beneficial exercise 
in understanding the advantages and disadvantages of different site strategies and 
approaches. 
Design solution #1: Town Square 
 
 
Figure 98: Design solution #1- Town Square (Author) 
 
 89 
 
The Town Square proposal creates a new communal green space which is 
open on all sides to the surrounding community. (Figure 99)  This space is intended to 
serve as a new town square for College Park, helping to anchor the community center 
as the heart of civic activity in the city.  The space is sized to accommodate a soccer 
field appropriate for children?s teams up to age 11.  However, the use of this space is 
not intended to be restricted to soccer.  It can be used for dog walking, casual picnics 
and strolls, pick-up games softball or frisbee, festivals, farmers markets, protests, 
outdoor movie showings, and many other community activities. 
 
Figure 99: Perspective of town square (Author) 
 
 90 
 
In this scheme, a new road is cut through the block to increase connectivity 
between the two sides of the site.  The lots facing this new street and the town square 
would be developed from single-family housing to higher-density development more 
appropriate to their newly-prominent positions fronting the town square. (Figure 100) 
 
Figure 100: Town Square - urban implications (Author) 
 
 
 
 
Figure 101: Town Square - aerial views with city context (Author) 
 
 91 
 
 
Figure 102: Town Square - first floor plan (Author) 
 
 
Figure 103: Town Square - second floor plan (Author) 
 92 
 
In the Town Square proposal, the town hall functions are contained entirely in 
the existing 1938 building, which is almost exactly the same size as the existing city 
hall.  An additional new small building positioned along Calvert Road next to the 
historic building provides additional office space for the city?s administrators.  The 
large new building on the southern half of the site contains both the Home for 
Community and the Exercise & Activity program functions. 
A prominent tree-lined Walk feature provides a strong connection between the 
neighborhoods on either side of the site and mediates between the large, open town 
square and the buildings? fa?ades.  This area incorporates a water feature which 
references the historical presence of the creek on the site, though it does not replicate 
its path. 
 
Figure 104: The Walk (Author) 
 
In this scheme, the buildings form a courtyard which houses open space of a very 
different character from that in the town square.  The enclosure of the buildings 
makes this space feel semi-private, dedicated to the needs of the community center 
and its users. (Figure 105)  The interior spaces surrounding this courtyard have strong 
visual and physical connections to this green space, with program elements such as 
 93 
 
outdoor caf? seating that spill out into the outdoor space during nice weather. (Figure 
106) 
 
Figure 105: Semi-private courtyard (Author) 
 
 
Figure 106: Gymnasium with visual and physical connections to courtyard green space (Author) 
 
The courtyard is entered either from the Walk, through the ceremonial gateway which 
connects the old building with the new (Figure 107) or through the gap between the 
buildings on Calvert Road (Figure 108 and Figure 109). 
 94 
 
 
Figure 107: Gateway - entry to courtyard and connection between old and new (Author) 
 
 
Figure 108: View from Calvert Road (Author) 
 
 95 
 
 
Figure 109: Entrance to semi-private courtyard (Author) 
 96 
 
Design solution #2: The Lawn 
 
 
Figure 110: Design solution #2 - The Lawn (Author) 
 
The Lawn proposal focuses inward, on a large lawn which forms a communal outdoor 
?room? between the buildings.  The buildings in this scheme are grouped on the 
northern half of the site, creating a strong ?front? facing Calvert Road. (Figure 111 
and Figure 112)  The southern part of the site is filled with a large, informal park 
space.  In the center of this park, along the original path of the creek that flowed 
through the site, is a pond. (Figure 113) 
 
 
 97 
 
 
Figure 111: Lawn scheme aerial perspective (Author) 
 
 
 
Figure 112: View from Calvert Road (Author) 
 
 
 98 
 
Figure 113: Park space, with view toward the lawn (Author) 
 
The central lawn is lined with a colonnade which creates a covered open-air 
porch at ground level connecting the five buildings and creating an informal space for 
neighbors to meet. (Figure 114)  There are benches under this colonnade where 
community members can sit in the shade to talk and to watch soccer games and other 
events held on the lawn. (Figure 115) 
 
Figure 114: Central lawn lined with colonnade (Author) 
 
 
Figure 115: Partial section of central lawn space and surrounding two-story colonnade (Author) 
 
On the second floor, the liner is mostly conditioned space connecting the 
buildings (Figure 116), though there is an open porch on the second floor outside of 
the community living room where visitors to the community center can sit and chat or 
watch the games and other events being held on the Lawn. (Figure 117) 
 99 
 
 
 
Figure 116: Second level of colonnade and connection to town assembly room (Author) 
 
 
Figure 117: Outdoor porch at second level (Author)  
 
In this scheme, only the iconic ?head house? element of the historic 1938 
building is retained. (Figure 118)  The fact that the south wall of this piece of the 
building is a solid brick wall with only small punched openings to make connections 
to the ?tail? element of the building suggests that this may, in fact, have been the 
original construction on the site, and that the building?s ?tail? was later added on. 
 100 
 
(Figure 119)  The town hall functions are contained in this iconic portion of the 
historic building and the two small new buildings to either side of it, facing Calvert 
Road.  The Home for Community and Exercise & Activity program areas are 
contained in two long buildings which frame the lawn on the east and west sides. 
 
Figure 118: The Lawn ? iconic portion of existing building (Author) 
 
 101 
 
 
Figure 119: Possible evidence that the ?tail? of the historic building was a later addition (Author)
 102 
 
  
 
Figure 120: The Lawn ? aerial views with city context (Author) 
 
 103 
 
 
Figure 121: The Lawn - first floor plan (Author) 
 
 
Figure 122: The Lawn - second floor plan (Author)
 104 
 
Comparative analysis of design solutions 
 
Each of the two final schemes presented above takes a different attitude 
toward the preservation of the existing building, the creation of communal outdoor 
space, connections between neighbors and neighborhoods and sidedness with relation 
to the existing context.  The attitude of the Town Square scheme on these issues can 
be summarized in 5 main points: 
Table 5: Town Square - 5 point summary (Author) 
The Town Square Scheme: 
1 Maintains the entire historic 1938 building 
2 Creates a new town square for College Park 
3 
Incorporates ?The Walk? feature, which creates a prominent and 
ceremonial pedestrian connection between the neighborhoods to the 
north and south of the site 
4 Creates separate public and semi-private outdoor space 
5 Is outward embracing 
 
The attitude taken by The Lawn scheme on the same issues is quite different.  It can 
be summarized by the following 5 main points: 
Table 6: The Lawn - 5 point summary (Author) 
The Lawn Scheme: 
1 Maintains the just the iconic portion of the 1938 building 
2 Creates a large outdoor communal ?room? 
3 Creates ?porches? ? interstitial spaces for informal interaction 
4 Creates a ?front on Calvert? and a backyard facing the neighborhood 
5 Is inward looking embracing 
 
Figure 123 and Figure 124 explore these differences in diagram form. 
 105 
 
 
 
Figure 123: Town Square - 5 point summary (Author) 
 
 
Figure 124: The Lawn - 5 point summary (Author) 
 
A comparison of the square footage figures for each scheme shows that the 
Lawn proposal has about 4,500 sf more indoor space than the Town Square proposal. 
(Table 7)  This is due, in part, to the inclusion of additional program elements, such 
as the conditioned second story of the colonnade and bleachers, a stretching area and 
a walking track in the gymnasium.  However, it is also due to a less efficient 
arrangement of space, as indicated by the consistently higher percentage difference in 
this scheme between net and gross square footage. 
It is also interesting to compare the total outdoor space provided by each 
scheme.  Though the indoor square footage of the Town Square scheme is only 
slightly smaller than that of the Lawn scheme, it provides more than 20,000 additional 
square feet of programmed outdoor space. (Table 8) 
 106 
 
Table 7: Indoor program comparison (Author) 
 
 107 
 
Table 8: Outdoor program comparison (Author) 
  
 It is also useful to compare the building envelope required by each of the 
schemes.(Table 9)  While the Town Square scheme has slightly more roof space than 
the Lawn scheme, it has a smaller total building envelope, which makes it a more 
economical choice. 
Table 9: Building envelope comparison (Author) 
  
A smaller building envelope is also likely to improve the building?s energy 
efficiency by decreasing the area over which heat or cool air is lost to the outside.  
The Town Square scheme also reuses more of the existing building envelope, which 
means that it actually requires about 11,000 fewer square feet of new building 
 108 
 
envelope than the Lawn Scheme, making it both more economically efficient and 
more sustainably effective in terms of material conservation and reuse. 
In other categories of conservation and reuse, such as reuse of the brick from 
the 1952/4 extension and maintaining existing mature trees on site, a comparison of 
the two schemes shows that they achieve very similar results. (Figure 125-Figure 
129) 
 
Figure 125: Brick reuse - Town Square (Author) 
 
 109 
 
 
Figure 126: Brick reuse - The Lawn (Author) 
 
 
Figure 127: Existing trees on site (Author) 
 
 110 
 
 
Figure 128: Maintenance of existing trees - Town Square (Author) 
 
 
Figure 129: Maintenance of existing trees - The Lawn (Author) 
 
 111 
 
Finally, a comparative analysis of the location of the various program 
elements in the two schemes, in terms of adjacencies, access to daylight, isolation of 
noisy/quiet program elements, public and private elements, and served/servant spaces 
explores some of the some of the other subtle differences between the schemes. 
(Figure 130-Figure 149) 
 
 112 
 
 
Figure 130: Program elements ? key (Author) 
 
       
Figure 131: Location of program elements ? Town Square, Floors 1 & 2 (Author) 
 
 113 
 
 
Figure 132: Location of program elements ? The Lawn, Floor 1 (Author) 
 
 
Figure 133: Location of program elements ? The Lawn, Floor 2 (Author) 
 
 114 
 
 
Figure 134: Access to daylight, program requirements ? key (Author) 
 
       
Figure 135 Access to daylight ? Town Square, Floors 1 & 2 (Author) 
 
 115 
 
 
Figure 136: Access to daylight ? The Lawn, Floor 1 (Author) 
 
 
Figure 137: Access to daylight ? The Lawn, Floor 2 (Author) 
 
 116 
 
 
Figure 138: Noisy/quiet spaces- key (Author) 
 
       
Figure 139: Arrangement of noisy/quiet spaces - Town Square, Floors 1 & 2 (Author) 
 
 117 
 
 
Figure 140: Arrangement of noisy/quiet spaces ? The Lawn, Floor 1 (Author) 
 
 
Figure 141: Arrangement of noisy/quiet spaces ? The Lawn, Floor 2 (Author) 
 
 118 
 
 
Figure 142: Public/private spaces ? key (Author) 
 
       
Figure 143: Arrangement of public/private spaces - Town Square, Floors 1 & 2 (Author) 
 
 119 
 
 
Figure 144: Arrangement of public/private spaces, The Lawn, Floor 1 (Author) 
 
 
Figure 145: Arrangement of public/private spaces, The Lawn, Floor 2 (Author) 
 
 120 
 
 
Figure 146: Served/Servant spaces ? key (Author) 
 
       
Figure 147: Arrangement of served/servant spaces - Town Square, Floors 1 & 2 (Author) 
 
 121 
 
 
Figure 148: Arrangement of served/servant spaces - The Lawn, Floor 1 (Author) 
 
 
Figure 149: Arrangement of served/servant spaces - The Lawn, Floor 2 (Author) 
 122 
 
Chapter 5: Conclusion 
Summary of the jury?s assessment 
The two design solutions outlined above were presented to and critiqued by a 
jury of architects and consultants from related fields on November 16, 2009.  Most of 
the jury?s comments focused on the relative advantages and disadvantages of the two 
schemes. 
 
Town Square: 
 
The jury appreciated that this scheme builds on what is already there on the 
site, and that it creates a sense of sequence to the community spaces.  They also felt 
that it succeeds in creating spaces on a human level and that it transitions well from 
high to lower density development from the west side of the site to the east side.  
They felt that it created a great pedestrian connection between the north and south 
sides of the site and also created a nice opportunity to use the west fa?ade to sculpt 
the retail area. 
The jury was concerned that it may not be smart to get rid of so much of the 
parking on site.  They suggested that parking could help to bring more activity to the 
site, and help to support the retail area proposed in the Town Square scheme.  The 
jury was also suggested that adding more retail to the site is not the best strategy, 
since retail in College Park is already struggling.  They proposed that the new 
buildings facing the town square be used as rental units for student housing instead.  
This strategy would bring additional people to the site and ensure that there are eyes 
on the park at all times of day, making it a safer space.  Finally, the jury suggested 
 123 
 
that ?Town Commons? would be a more appropriate name for the scheme than 
?Town Square,? since the latter seems to imply a more intense urban condition than 
actually exists around the site. 
 
The Lawn: 
 
The Jury appreciated that the Lawn scheme, unlike the Town Square scheme, 
allows the buildings to organize the site, and affords the designer more control over 
the architecture.  They also felt that this scheme created a great public space, and 
some jurors felt that this was a better scheme than the other because of its sidedness.  
They suggested, however, that the open grassy space on the south end of the lot 
should not be called a ?backyard,? but instead a ?park.?  They felt that the formal 
Lawn could be improved by a better understanding of the section of this outdoor 
?room,? suggesting that it ought to feel more enclosed and more like a ?space? than it 
currently does.  One jury member suggested the UVA lawn as a precedent for a study 
of this kind of outdoor space and an example of a project with a succession of 
different types of outdoor spaces. 
The jury felt that this scheme did not adequately address the idea of a front 
door for the lawn/outdoor room, and that the scheme might be improved if the very 
formal geometry of the buildings was relaxed at the edges to respond to the geometry 
of the site and the neighborhood and to create a Walk to bring pedestrian traffic 
straight through the site.  The jury also suggested that the second floor of the 
colonnade that wraps around the Lawn should be outdoor, unconditioned space, to 
connect people to the space on multiple levels. 
 
 124 
 
General comments: 
 
Some of the jurors questioned the decision to continue to develop two separate 
schemes, arguing that either one must be chosen, or perhaps different options should 
be explored which would combine the two schemes into one.  They felt that both of 
the schemes were too formal, and the geometries too stiff, especially considering the 
site conditions.  They suggested that the schemes would fit better in a strict urban 
grid, and that they might be improved by angling some of the buildings to respond to 
the site.  One juror also suggested that some of the outdoor program spaces seem to 
be floating, rather than being embraced by the architecture.  This juror suggested that 
diagramming the public spaces and their relationship to the interior spaces to figure 
out how to better integrate them into the design. 
The jurors also suggested that the drawings ought to have more people in 
them to give a better sense of how the spaces will be inhabited.  They also suggested 
that while I had summarized some of the advantages of each scheme, I had not 
adequately analyzed the disadvantages inherent in each.  They suggested that I ought 
to do this in order to better understand the trade-offs were I to choose one scheme 
over the other.  Finally, the jurors suggested that I share my research and design 
proposals with the elected officials of College Park, who might be interested in new 
ideas for how to develop this site. 
 125 
 
Response to the jury?s critique 
 
I appreciated the insightful comments and feedback that I received from the 
jury, and generally agreed with their assessment of the relative strengths and 
weaknesses of the two schemes. 
Town Square: 
 
I agree that ?Town Commons? would be a more appropriate description for 
this scheme, and will refer to it as such from this point onward.  I also agree that 
additional retail space may not be the best land use for the new higher-density 
buildings facing the west side of the town commons.  The suggestion to develop this 
instead as rental housing seems like a good strategy, bringing additional people into 
the area who will make use of and watch over the commons.  These buildings could 
still have some light retail, or non-retail commercial at ground level. 
 
Figure 150: Town Commons - new land use map (Author) 
 
 126 
 
I disagree with the jury?s argument that more parking should be retained on 
site.  I think that it would be beneficial to have on-street parallel parking along the 
new street that has been cut through the block along the edge of the town commons, 
but I don?t think that it is necessary to allot additional area to surface parking on the 
site.  Most of the residents from the neighborhoods served by the community center 
will be able to walk to the site, and I believe that those who can?t will be well-served 
by the new parking garage two blocks to the north.  
 
The Lawn: 
 
I agree with the jury?s suggestion that the grassy space on the south end of the 
lot should be called a ?park? rather than a ?backyard,? and have generally thought of 
it as such throughout the design process.  The term ?backyard? was applied in the 
analysis diagram to convey the sense of sidedness in this scheme, which has a strong 
built-up front on the busier Calvert Road, and a more informal organization facing the 
neighborhood across Guilford Road, analogous to a house?s front and back yards.  
Perhaps this relationship would be more clearly and succinctly explained by the terms 
?front? and ?back.? (Figure 151) 
 
Figure 151: The Lawn - front and back (Author) 
 
 127 
 
I also agree with the jury?s assessment that a real understanding of the 
sectional qualities of the Lawn space is required to understand the experience of that 
space.  After studying the UVA Lawn as a precedent, I completed a sectional study 
which shows that the Lawn in its current configuration is, indeed, a very long and 
shallow space.  (Figure 152 and Figure 153)  While I think that it is defined well 
enough to read as a ?space,? I agree that the proportions might be improved if the 
liner that surrounds this space became taller, so that the height of the space is better 
balanced with the length and width. (Figure 154) 
 
Figure 152: Sectional study of lawn (Author) 
 
 
Figure 153: 3d representation of Lawn space (Author) 
 
 
Figure 154: 3d representation Lawn space with increased height (Author) 
 
 128 
 
I understand the jury?s desire to see a stronger connecting element, similar to 
the Walk, incorporated into this design, and agree that the scheme might be improved 
by such a connection across the site.  I also understand the argument that was made 
for the second floor of the colonnade that wraps around the Lawn to be outdoor, 
unconditioned space.  I had considered this solution myself, but came to the 
conclusion that the resulting sacrifice in building area, program functionality and 
connectivity may not worth the trade-off. 
General comments: 
 
My committee and I continue to stand by the decision to develop two separate 
schemes through to the end of the design process.  It has provided me with a unique 
educational opportunity to better understand the later implications of schematic 
design decisions that I have not been able to have in other contexts, where a design 
must be chosen fairly early in the process in order to ensure adequate completion.  
While I have taken note of the advantages and disadvantages of each scheme as they 
became apparent throughout the design process, I agree with the jury?s assessment 
that this element of analysis was under-represented in the public presentation, 
particularly in terms of the disadvantages, and have added additional images and 
analysis to the ?Comparative analysis of design solutions? section of this document. 
 I also agree with the jury?s comments that the perspective drawings that I 
presented ought to give a better sense of the character of the spaces.  I have improved 
and updated some of the perspective drawings presented in the ?Design solutions? 
section of this document. 
 129 
 
In response to one juror?s comments that some of the outdoor program spaces 
seem to be floating, rather than being embraced by the architecture, I diagrammed the 
outdoor public spaces and their relationship to the interior spaces.  (Figure 155 and 
Figure 156)  After studying the results of this diagramming exercise, I felt that the 
programmed outdoor spaces were well-located to form connections with the related 
indoor spaces (with the possible exception of the playground in the Lawn scheme).  
However, it is true that additional formal moves could be made to reach out to and 
embrace some of the outdoor elements such as the playground space in each scheme. 
 
Figure 155: Diagram of connections between indoor and outdoor programmed spaces - Town 
Commons (Author) 
 
 130 
 
 
Figure 156: Diagram of connections between indoor and outdoor programmed spaces ? The Lawn 
(Author) 
 
I understand the jury?s feeling that the geometries of the two schemes 
presented were too rigid for the non-orthogonal geometry of the site, and after the 
public presentation, I explored some possible schemes with a more relaxed geometry 
at the schematic level.  Figures 157 & 158 present two different options for a Town 
Commons scheme which responds more effectively to the southern edge of the site.  
Figure 157 explores an option in which the shape of the building morphs to meet the 
edge of the site, while Figure 158 shows an option in which the building on this edge 
is fronted by a paved plaza or garden space which mediates between the orthogonal 
geometry of the buildings and the looser geometry of the site.  I believe that this 
second scheme represents a more successful solution. 
 131 
 
 
Figure 157: Schematic exploration of relaxed geometries ? Town Commons 1 (Author) 
 
 
Figure 158: Schematic exploration of relaxed geometries ? Town Commons 2 (Author) 
 
 132 
 
Figures 159-161 present three different options for a Lawn scheme that 
responds more effectively to the western edge of the site.  Figures 159 & 160 respond 
to this edge with an additional built form on the western side of the gymnasium 
building.  I believe that the scheme presented in Figure 160 is the more successful of 
these schemes because it responds more effectively to the setback of the surrounding 
building context as well as the edge of the site.  Figure 161 presents a scheme in 
which an outdoor walled playground space is used to mediate between the geometry 
of the site and that of the buildings.  I believe that this scheme is more successful than 
the other two in terms of appropriateness for the proposed program and best use of 
the space. 
 
Figure 159: Schematic exploration of relaxed geometries ? The Lawn 1 (Author) 
 
 133 
 
 
Figure 160: Schematic exploration of relaxed geometries ? The Lawn 2 (Author) 
 
 
Figure 161: Schematic exploration of relaxed geometries ? The Lawn 3 (Author) 
 134 
 
Conclusions 
After conducting an extensive comparative analysis of the two proposed 
schemes, I have come to the conclusion that neither scheme offers a solution that is 
clearly better for the site and the community.  Rather, through the process of 
developing two schemes to this level of completion and analyzing their comparative 
attributes, I have been able to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each 
scheme, and the tradeoffs that result from different design moves and solutions. 
I very much appreciate the jurors? suggestion that I share my research and 
design proposals with the elected officials of College Park, and intend to do so.  I 
believe that when I do, it will be an advantage to have two separate schemes to 
present rather than one complete solution, because I think that this approach invites 
and enables a discussion about priorities that is important for a building project that is 
intended to serve the community.  Offering the two different schemes and the 
associated analysis allows the community to have an informed discussion about 
which elements are most important to them and to understand the tradeoffs that must 
be made when one element is prioritized over another.  For example, if maximizing 
outdoor space or maintaining more of the historic building are issues that members of 
the community feel strongly about, then the Town Commons scheme may best suit 
their interests.  However, the analysis that has been presented in this study will allow 
them to understand the tradeoffs that they will have to make in terms of access to 
daylight, clarity of front/back conditions, and other issues that are prioritized in the 
Lawn scheme. 
 135 
 
I believe that, after a fruitful discussion based on the existing proposals and 
analysis, the next step in the design process would be to use this information about 
the community?s priorities to create a hybrid scheme which maximizes as many of the 
highest priorities as possible.  Figure 162 shows a sample of what this next step might 
involve.  This image shows a schematic exploration of a scheme which combines 
elements from both the Town Commons and the Lawn proposals.  This scheme 
maintains the open space of the Town Commons scheme, and combines it with a 
formal lawn element.  The new buildings on the site are condensed into one large 
building to improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness, and to set off the unique nature 
of the historic element that is retained.  Two new roads are cut through the east and 
west sides of the site to improve connectivity across the site for both pedestrians and 
automobile traffic. 
 
Figure 162: Schematic exploration of combined scheme (Author) 
 
 136 
 
I believe that an iterative process of this type of exploration, based on the 
information gleaned from the development and analysis of the two original scheme 
proposals, would lead to a final design that is truly driven by and responsive to the 
needs and priorities of the community that it is intended to serve. 
 137 
 
Bibliography 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, ?National Historic Preservation Act of 
 1966,? http://www.achp.gov/docs/nhpa%202008-final.pdf. (accessed March
  13, 2009) 
 
Anacostia Trails Heritage Area, ?College Park City Hall.? The Historical Marker 
 Database, http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=13161 (accessed 
 November 14, 2009). 
 
Buildings Energy Data Book: September 2008, 1.4.14, ?1996 Construction and 
 Demolition Debris Generated from Construction Activities and Debris 
 Generation Rates,? U.S. Department of Energy, 
 http://buildingsdatabook.eere.energy.gov/ (accessed March 13, 2009). 
 
Buildings Energy Data Book: September 2008, ?1.6.8: Embodied Energy of Column 
 and Beam Assemblies in the U.S.,? U.S. Department of Energy, 
 http://buildingsdatabook.eere.energy.gov/ (accessed March 13, 2009). 
 
Chase, John Leighton.  LA 2000+: New Architecture in Los Angeles.  New York, 
 NY: The Monacelli Press, Inc., 2006. 
 
Cho Benn Holback + Assoc., ?Rouse Visionary Center,? 
 http://www.cbhassociates.com/projects/archive/cultural/museums/avam.htm 
 (accessed March 9, 2009). 
 
Clark, David, ?Adaptive Reuse,? APT DC Newsletter, Summer 2006, 
 http://apt.dc.org.googlepages.com//Newsletters/SUMMER2006_.pdf 
 (accessed March 13, 2009). 
 
Crane, Robin and Malcolm Dixon.  Indoor Sports Spaces.  New York, NY: Van 
 Nostrand Reinhold, 1991. 
 
Davis, Charles R.  The First Twenty-Five Years of the City of College Park. 
 (Publishing information not available ? the booklet appears to be non-
  professionally published.  A copy was obtained from the City of College Park 
 Department of Planning.) 
 
Design Cost Data E-News, ?Preserving the Past: Historic Repair Requires Informed 
 Approach?, Structural Group, 
 http://www.structural.net/Article/tabid/434/contentid/176/Default.aspx 
 (accessed March 13, 2009). 
 
Digital Sanborn Map Collection, ?1939 Sanborn map,? University of Maryland 
 Libraries, http://sanborn.umi.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/ (accessed
  March 13, 2009). 
 138 
 
 
East Campus Redevelopment Initiative.  ?Initial Development Concepts.?  University 
 of Maryland Division of Administrative Affairs.  
 http://www.eastcampus.umd.edu/InitConcept.cfm (accessed March 5, 2009). 
 
Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut & Kuhn Architects.  Email message to author, March 19, 2009. 
 
Fogarty, Kate Hensler.  Health Clubs: Architecture & Design.  Glen Cove, NY: PBC 
 International, Inc, 1998. 
 
Google Maps.  http://maps.google.com/ (accessed March 9, 2009). 
 
Koning Eizenberg Architecture.  Architecture isn?t just for special occasions.  New 
 York, NY: The Monacelli Press, Inc, 2006. 
 
Live Search Maps.  http://maps.live.com/ (accessed March 9, 2009). 
 
Natural Resources Defense Council, ?Forests,? 
 http://www.nrdc.org/land/forests/default.asp (accessed October 1, 2006). 
 
Natural Resources Defense Council, ?How to Build a Better Home,? 
 http://www.nrdc.org/cities/building/fwoodus.asp (accessed March 13, 2009). 
 
Patkau Architects.  Patkau Architects.  Introduction by Kenneth Frampton.  New 
York, NY: The Monacelli Press, Inc, 2006. 
 
Prince George?s County Planning Board.  ?Central US 1 Corridor Sector Plan and 
 Sectional Map Amendment.?  Prince George?s County Planning Department.  
 http://mncppc.org/cpd/central_US1/ (accessed March 5, 2009). 
 
Rockcastle, Garth.  ?Subsequent Action,? University of Maryland Exhibit Catalog, 
 http://publications.ingagepublication.com/UMDSAEXHIBIT/digitalpublicati
  on.php (March 9, 2009). 
 
Shepherd, J.C. and G.A. Jellicoe.  Italian Gardens of the Renaissance.  Princeton, NJ:
  Princeton International Press, 1986. 
 
Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972). 
 
U.S. Department of Energy, ?Buildings Energy Data Book: September 2008,? 
 http://buildingsdatabook.eere.energy.gov/ (accessed March 19, 2009). 
 
Wikipedia, ?Adaptive Reuse,? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_reuse (accessed 
 March 13, 2009).