Designing for a

Community Art Museum

Danforth Museum of Art Framingham, Massachusetts

Enhancing the Revitalization

Of a Small American City

Roger Orphé Jeanty May 2007

Landscape Institute Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University

page ii

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the:

Certificate in Landscape Design

Landscape Institute, Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University

Faculty Advisor: Jean Cavanaugh Landscape Institute Director: John Furlong

Credits & Acknowledgements

COGdesign This project was executed under the auspices of the Community Outreach Group for Design (COGdesign). Lucia Droby, co-founder, is the current Executive Director). COGdesign’s motto is “Greening communities by design” COGdesign is Massachusetts 501.3c non-profit that provides pro bono design and low-cost design support services to underserved communities and under-funded non-profits. Information is available at www.cogdesign.org. The project benefited from review by the COGdesign Review process, which meets once a month on on-going projects. Principal Project Liaisons

• Katherine French, Director, Danforth Museum of Art • Danforth Museum - Board of Trustees, Amy Rossi • Danforth Museum - Facilities Committee, Marc Plonskier • Framingham Town Planning Office, Kathy Bartolini

Additional acknowledgements

• Kathy Bartolini, Kimbra Wellock, Lily Pollans, Mikaele Neves, Planning Office, Town of Framingham.

• Geoff Kovar, GIS (Graphical Information Systems) Manager, Town of Framingham

• Peter Sellers, Director, and John de Luca, Department of Public Works, Town of Framingham.

page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROJECT CONTEXT 1 Location 2 Brief history 4 Framingham Downtown Renaissance (FDR) 5 Site Vicinity 6 SITE ANALYSIS 8 Museum vicinity 9 Museum site 10 Visual approaches 12 PRECEDENTS & COMPARABLES 15 Fitchburg Art Museum 17 Peabody-Essex Museum 17 Davis Museum 18 Fogg Museum 18 De Cordova Sculpture Park 19 Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum 19 Museum of Fine Arts 20 DESIGN CONCEPTUALIZATION 21 Reducing the Parking Dominance 22 Determining the Design Style 25 FINAL MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT 26 Museum itself 27 Vicinity & Harry McCann Park 35

page iv

BIBLIOGRAPHY 39

APPENDIX A – INITIAL PROPOSAL 40 APPENDIX B – FOLD-OUT DESIGNS & MAPS 48

- 1 -

PROJECT CONTEXT

- 2 -

Framingham Location Framingham, Massachusetts is located within Middlesex County approximately 17 miles due west of Boston.

Illustration 1 – Framingham’s location relative to Boston

Framingham is considered the “hub of Metrowest Boston” by virtue of its large population, its position as a node in the mid-zone between Boston and Worcester, and by its definite urban character due to the concentration of industrial and commercial activity in an area that is primarily suburban and residential. Metrowest Boston is an imperfectly defined grouping of towns to the west of Boston usually referring to those located between the inner 128/I-95 and the outer I-495 highway belts that circumvent the city. The Metrowest Leadership Council uses a narrow definition that includes Ashland, Holliston, Hopkinton, Natick, Sherborn, Southboro, Sudbury, Wayland.

Illustration 2 - Metrowest Boston (broad definition) The broadest definition is illustrated in map above right, which includes Worcester and its suburbs. Even in this configuration, Framingham occupies a central position.

- 3 -

Framingham Population Metrics According to the 2000 US. Census, Framingham has a population in the range of 65,000, and a median household income of $55,000. Framingham’s population places it near the middle of the middle tier of US cities, those with populations between 50,000 and 100,000, as illustrated below.

Illustration 3 – Framingham’s population relative to US cities

North Framingham, defined as being the portion of the town that is north of Route 9, is largely residential and has middle-class to upper middle-class population with higher average incomes. South Framingham is more commercial and industrial and has a less affluent population. It also has a large immigrant population, mostly Brazilian, with some Hispanics and Asian Indians. Town Government Framingham still uses a town government structure (it is the largest such town in New England) which includes elected Selectmen and an Annual Town Meeting where the budget and major decisions are voted on by all the members of the community who are present at the specific time and place. Since the Museum for which this design project has been completed is situated on land owned by the Town of Framingham, communication and interaction with many Town officials on the scope, nature and outcomes of the project has been and will continue to be critical to implementation.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Number of cities

25,000 - 50,000

50,000 - 100,000

Over 100,000

Pop

ula

tion 241

364

643

- 4 -

Brief overview of Framingham’s history Framingham was founded in 1700 and grew slowly until after the Civil War. During the 1870 and 1880, due to the proximity of water, it grew as an industrial center. Later, it was a significant stop on the railway line west of Boston (towards Worcester and Springfield). After World War II, two large manufacturers set up significant installations in the downtown Framingham area, largely due to the presence of significant rail lines. General Motors had a large assembly plant south of downtown, Dennison (office supplies) had several building alongside the tracks on the east side of downtown (see map below). These manufacturing sites employed large labor forces, and Framingham’s downtown prospered. Largely blue-collar residential communities sprung up in the whole central Framingham area (north and south of the tracks).

Illustration 4 – Downtown Framingham and local economic activity centers In the mid 1980’s, these manufacturing facilities followed the national trend and went into decline. Today, the GM plant has become an Adessa facility (refurbishing and resale of wholesale used cars) and the Dennison factory (now Avery/Dennison) has only a few small buildings that are active (the former large Dennison factories are currently being converted to offices and condominiums).

• Largest “town” in Northeast – Town government, not a “

city”

Former Dennison (Avery/Dennison) factory area

Former GM Assembly

plant (now Adessa)

CCOOMMMMEERRCCIIAALL && MMAALLLLSS

HHIIGGHH--TTEECCHH HHIIGGHH--TTEECCHH

DanforthMuseum

- 5 -

Meanwhile, the high-technology boom that started in the 1980s brought many high-tech companies to the area of Framingham around Route 9 and the Massachusetts Turnpike, as well as large corporate offices and headquarters (Staples, Bose Technology, TJMaxx, International Data Corporation/Group, Meditech, Genzyme, etc.) Starting in the 1980s, all of Metrowest developed rapidly into desirable residential communities for the knowledge workers and staff accompanying the overall economic boom throughout Massachusetts (high-technology, financial services, medical devices, education). This resulted in the rapid development of major commercial centers and malls along the Route 9 corridor (in Framingham, the Framingham Mall, Shopper’s World, Jordan’s Furniture mall, etc.) Fall and resurgence In summary, Framingham underwent a significant downturn in the 1970s and early 1980s as its manufacturing base dwindled, but has, since the early 1990s, recovered some of its tax base and economic momentum, especially along the main east-west corridors (Route 9 and the Mass. Turnpike). Downtown Framingham has lagged somewhat in this resurgence, and there has been a very significant arrival of Brazilian immigrants to the downtown area and “south of the tracks” in what used to be the residences of the labor force for GM and Dennison. Now the local talk is of a resurgence in the downtown area and, as a part of this project, I formally joined the umbrella consortium called the Framingham Downtown Renaissance, described in the following section. Framingham Downtown Renaissance (FDR) I was asked by the Director of the Danforth Museum to formally join the Framingham Downtown Renaissance (FDR) effort in January 2007. FDR is an umbrella organization, typical of a public/private cooperative effort, that brings together a broad coalition of public officials, private enterprise and community groups involved in revitalizing downtown Framingham. It includes:

• Town of Framingham Planning Office • Framingham Economic Development Group (EDIC) • A few selectmen • Leaders of local cultural institutions (arts, library, museums) • Local Bank representatives • Local Church leaders • Brazilian-American community leaders (Bramas)

It has a little about 50 members, meets once a month, and discusses a range of topics pertinent to the development of downtown. It published the “Downtown Visualization Project” in April 2007 which references this design project for the Danforth and the Harry McCann park. I had the privilege of presenting a summary of this project in a presentation on May 12th, 2007.

- 6 -

Site Vicinity & Visual Analysis The Danforth Museum and the site for this project is located within close proximity of downtown Framingham as seen in the illustrations below.

The center of downtown Framingham is defined by the rotary (orange circle) in front of Memorial Hall (see photograph), which is Framingham’s Town Hall.

Illustration 6 – Memorial Building

Illustration 5 – Danforth site within downtown visual boundary A visual analysis of the vicinity around the Danforth Museum yields the ability to distinguish several interlocking but distinct areas within this central zone (see the illustration on the following page).

a. The downtown visual area outlined in orange dashes is fairly distinctly defined as one travels down the main axes. The character of the street changes dramatically from residential to commercial and institutional.

b. The medical area, associated with the Framingham Union hospital (off the

map) is characterized by numerous doctor, specialist and dentist offices (often in former residential buildings) clearly indicated with corresponding signage and hanging shingles.

c. The Arts & Culture triangle, which is presently not visually identifiable, is a

conceptual area, defined by the Framingham Downtown Renaissance consortium. It includes the area outlined in red dashes, and comprises three main cultural institutions: the Framingham public library, the Civic Center (meetings and cultural events) the Danforth Museum of Art (site of this project).

N

Visual boundary of “downtown Framingham”

FraminghamDowntown

Center

“ Memorial”Town Hall

Danforth Museum

Adjacent Vicinity

- 7 -

Visual boundary of “downtown Framingham”

Conceptual boundary of “ Arts & Culture” triangle

FraminghamDowntown

Center

Practical boundary of “medical area”around Framingham Union hospital

Museum

Library

Civic Center

“FDR believes that the Cultural Triangle is the new anchor for

downtown and is an integral component of the future success of

downtown Framingham”

FDR Downtown Visualization Project – April 2007

Illustration 7 – Distinct visual and conceptual areas in site vicinity Summary of Project Context This landscape design project therefore finds itself as a significant element placed within the momentum of a general thrust to revitalize downtown Framingham. The most active community-based group in the town that is focused on downtown is the FDR umbrella organization, and they key concept it has articulated for the revitalization effort is the Arts & Culture triangle, of which the Danforth Museum of Art is one of 3 cornerstones.

- 8 -

SITE ANALYSIS

- 9 -

Existing Conditions in Site Vicinity This existing conditions in the site vicinity are summarized in the graphic below.

PARK

ING

PARK

ING

PARKING

MAIN ENTRANCE

SIDEENTRANCE

SIDEENTRANCE

Narrow “scary”alley

Narrow “scary”alley

Sickly street trees

Poorly maintained

Jap. Maples & groundcover

Well maintained church lawn/shrubsPark is very dilapidated but

has potential - crabgrass

Residential

Residential

Resid

enti

al

Residential Large brick Verizon building

Ugly concrete

Light brick

matches Danforth

LibraryEntrance

Entrance

Abandonedcourtyard

Existing Conditions in Site Vicinity

Illustration 8 – Sketch of existing conditions in Site Vicinity

Of prime interest is the location of a large parking structure between the Danforth Museum and the Public Library. Current signs indicate it is reserved for use of library patrons, but it is vastly underused. This became a critical element in the design development phase. Also of interest is the Harry McCann park, very dilapidated, which is located at the center of the conceptual Arts & Culture triangle, and which was identified as being of critical importance to the Town of Framingham. This design project had been originally focused on just the Danforth Museum. However, in an effort to obtain support and buy-in from the Town of Framingham, for whom this park is an eyesore and a priority, the project was extended ton cinclude a design for this park.

- 10 -

Existing Conditions at Site This existing conditions in the site vicinity are summarized in the graphic below.

Existing Conditions at Museum Site

PARK

ING

PARK

ING

PARKING

MAIN ENTRANCE

SIDEENTRANCE

HANDICAPPEDENTRANCE & ELEVATOR

SIDEENTRANCE

SCULPTURE

SCULPTURE

LINDEN

LINDEN

ASH

MAPLE MAPLE

WALKWAY

FLAGPOLE

SCULPTURE

PIN OAK

Parking “girdles”façade – dominates

visually

Bad Cross-over of

Cars & pedestrians

2 sick

hemlocks

3 sculptures are

“plopped” on

crabgrass

Very denselinden

Very dense

linden

Entry to parkinguses sloped sidewalk

Need separatefaçade analysis

Check diagonal

Views

Änalyze

“approaches”

Mos

tly

crab

gras

s

Small

Entry to parkinguses sloped sidewalk

Abandonedcourtyard

haspotential

Illustration 9 – Sketch of existing conditions at site

The Museum itself was a former high school, built in 1907, that was chartered as a museum in 1973. The most important elements of this site analysis include:

The prevalence of parking and its dominance (60%) of the available land area The dangerous cross-over of vehicular and pedestrian traffic The need for a façade analysis due to the dominance of the buildings 3-story

façade over the site These elements are analyzed further in the following sections.

- 11 -

Façade Analysis The Danforth Museum building has three floors and dominates the site. A parking apron girdles the site on two sides. It is bisected by a drab asphalt path leading to the street, rarely used, since most access is from the sides. The façade is symmetrical in a sort of neo-classical style with increasingly taller windows in the central portion of the building. The brick is pale yellow. The two wings protrude slightly (7.5 feet), thereby creating two optimal break points where a landscape design could help to break up the façade (60 feet high) in order to slightly diminish its dominance. When viewing the façade currently, one notices three sculptures, part of the Danforth’s permanent collection which appear to be have been somewhat randomly deposited. The design should incorporate a number of possible sites for sculpture with favorable viewing conditions. The existing vegetation is somewhat scruffy and random:

Poor-quality turf Young pin oak Scraggly ash tree Two dense aged lindens Large maples on the north side

Illustration 10 – Façade analysis The hemlocks on the north side are diseased (wooly adelgid infestation) and the existing shrubs are unpruned and unsuited to the north side’s shade conditions.

SYMMETRY underused, drab path

Optimal “break” points

Sculptures randomly“plopped” down

- 12 -

Topography and Sunlight Exposure

Base -0.2’

Base -0.0

Base + 0.2’

Base + 0.4’Base + 0.6’Base + 0.8’Base + 1.0’Base + 1.2’

Drainage

Drainage

Drainage

Dra

inag

e

ApproximateTopography

@ Principal Site

• Overall, site isvirtually flat

• Museum is built on a slightly elevated foundation

• Sheet drainage around building

1’ isometric contour

0.2’ isometric contour

SunlightExposure

< 2 hrs

2 – 4 hrs

4 – 6 hrs

> 6 hrs

Daily hours of sunlight at main Danforth site

Spring (Mar. 21) to Fall (Sep. 21)

N

Illustration 11 – Site topography and summer sunlight exposure

The site is virtually flat, with a 2% slope on the asphalt between the building and the beginning of the grassy area, about a 1% slope afterwards up to the sidewalk. Sun exposure is full sun, except where tree shade is provided, for the growing season from March 21st (beginning of spring) to December 21st (end of fall). The north side of the building is generally in the shadow, and with the presence of two large maples, can be considered to be fully shade, with minimal reflected light from the building pale-colored brick. Visual Approaches Informal conversations yielded the realization that the Danforth was practically invisible when driving up or down Union Avenue, and often confused with another high school up the street. This observation led me to a visual study of approaches as illustrated in the accompanying illustrations. Both pedestrians and vehicles coming from the downtown area come from the SSE (including public transportation via bus or train). Pedestrians and vehicles coming from residential areas of Route 9 come typically from the NNW.

Illustration 12 – Principal vehicular and pedestrian approaches

Adjacent Vicinity

Danforth

Streetscape – Visual Approaches to the Danforth

- 13 -

It became quickly obvious that the diagonal axes of viewing were the most important in quick identification of the Danforth Museum. Both pedestrians and vehicular passengers would first see the museum from a diagonal view and could then determine where they were and where to go.

Visual approaches along Union Avenue

fromNNW

fromSSE

Illustration 13 – Diagonal views and approaches to the Danforth

Relevant Observations from Analysis of Approaches• Opportunity to mark “gateway”

into downtown Framingham

• Opportunity to identify“Arts & Culture” triangle

• Diagonal views/accessinto Danforth important

• Signage perpendicular to street

PARK

ING

PARK

ING

MAIN ENTRANCE

SIDEENTRANCE

SIDEENTRANCE

SCULPTUIRE

SCULPTUIRE

LINDEN

LINDEN

ASH

MAPLE MAPLE

WALKWAY

FLAGPOLE

SCULPTUIRE

PIN OAK

Gatew

ay

AxisAxis

Signage

Signage

Signage

Signage

Illustration 14 –Conclusions from the analysis of approaches

- 14 -

It was also clear than any signage identifying the Museum should placed perpendicular to the direction of travel for both pedestrians and vehicles. The small sketch above illustrates the concept using streetside banners placed at 90 degrees to the line of travel. Lastly, given our analysis of the site vicinity and of the Danforth Museum’s site as being on the cusp of the entry into the downtown area, it seemed appropriate to identify it as a gateway to downtown and/or entrypoint into the proposed Arts & Culture triangle through the use of appropriate signage techniques (banners), lighting selection (street and site-specific) and street- tree plantings (unify them with plantings further downtown). Summary of Site Analysis The design imperatives distilled from the project context, the site vicinity overview and the specific site analysis were the ones bulleted in the list of the following graphic.

Site Analysis: Principal Design ImperativesProgrammatic• Increase awareness of

Danforth building

• Wider entrance with some “grandeur”

• Separate pedestrian & vehicular flows

• Substantive seating in the front museum forecourt “plaza”

• Some shaded spots for summer months

• Find some alternative parking

• Parking “girdle” must be broken up

Community-oriented• Create inviting community space

at Danforth & McCann park• Opportunity to “streetscape” to

define “Arts & Culture” triangle• More of a “gateway” to downtown

= some urban design• Opportunity to contribute to the

“greening” of downtown

Design specific• Use diagonal views & approaches• Monolithic façade should be

segmented• Opportunity to add a little

topography• Green space needed to offset

building density & asphalt dominance

Illustration 15 –Design imperatives from site analysis, vicinity overview and project context

- 15 -

PRECEDENTS & COMPARABLES

- 16 -

Purpose of Precedent & Comparables Study The purpose of studying the landscapes surrounding and adjacent to a selected group of museums in Massachusetts was to answer two principal questions:

1. Is there a “typical” landscape associated with museums ? 2. Does the adjacent landscape contribute significantly to the appeal of a

museum ? It is clear that the essential mission of most museums is to display objects and educate the public about certain specific areas of art, science, craft or some other human endeavor. Museums are typically one or more buildings, and they typically have some form of landscape around them. Is the public aware of the landscape near museums? Does the beauty of the museum’s appearance and outer landscape affect the intent and appreciation of the visiting public? In order to elucidate these issues, I decided to visit 7 museums of different types within Massachusetts. These were the following:

• Fitchburg Art Museum, Fitchburg, Massachusetts • Peabody-Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusetts • Davis Museum, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts • Fogg Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts • De Cordova Sculpture Park, Lincoln, Massachusetts • Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston, Massachusetts • Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Massachusetts

A very brief description of each museum and its landscape follows in the ensuing sections. A collage of selected photographs gives visual information relevant to this discussion.

- 17 -

Fitchburg Art Museum, Fitchburg, Massachusetts Fitchburg, like Framingham is a manufacturing town that is past its prime, and is rejuvenating slowly. Its Art Museum is small but focused on modern art and draws its share of sophisticated art connoisseurs.

The outside landscape is carefully constructed (a former COGdesign project) and well maintained. The tone of the landscape, like the museum, is modest. A little eclectic, the landscape reflects the eclectic collection of buildings that form the museum. The use of ornamental grasses contributes to allude to the modernistic content of the museum itself.

Illustration 16 – Collage of photographs: Fitchburg Art Museum Peabody-Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusetts Newly renovated through a large fund-raising effort, the Peabody-Essex Museum is quite extensive and focuses on the maritime history of Salem and especially its strong ties to the 19th and early 20th century China trade. It has a unique and nationally recognized collection of East Asian art. The entrance and front and back sides have virtually no landscape. Excellent signage is provided by a few banners. However, the east side of the museum features a long narrow garden designed by Van Valkenberg & Associates. The design has a post-modern touch in its lines and features several native species from Asia, thereby reflecting the focus of the Museum.

Illustration 17 – Collage of photographs: Peabody-Essex Museum

Fitchburg Art Museum

Peabody Essex Museum

- 18 -

Davis Museum, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts The Davis Museum at Wellesley College has an eclectic collection of art, as befits a college campus. The landscape is welcoming and features a delightful plaza outside the museum café, which is an “alternate” eating spot for students.

The plaza contains tables and chairs for outdoor eating during seasonable weather. The landscape is carefully designed with mostly native plants and is well maintained. The design is intimate, simple and effective.

Illustration 18 – Collage of photographs: Davis Museum Fogg Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts The Fogg Museum in Cambridge features a very classical symmetrical façade, similar to the Danforth. The museum sits right on the street and the façade can only be viewed from the section of the Harvard green that is across the street. Due to its location right on the edge of Chauncy Street, pedestrians and vehicular traffic can only readily identify the Fogg Museum when they are right in front of it, or by means of the judiciously placed banners overhanging the sidewalk that runs the length of it. The museum contains a sampling of art from many periods and regions.

Illustration 18 – Collage of photographs: Fogg Museum

Davis Museum @Wellesley

Fogg Museum, Cambridge

- 19 -

De Cordova Sculpture Park, Lincoln, Massachusetts The Cordova Sculpture Park differs in that its setting is very rural and features woodlands and landscaped terrain. The sculptures are placed sometimes in distinct landscape sub-areas, sometimes in more naturalistic settings without any specific plantings around them. The pathways and entrances feature some beautiful areas with clear design intent.

Illustration 19 – Collage of photographs: De Cordova Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston, Massachusetts The Isabella Stewart Gardner is unique in that its exterior landscape is virtually non-existent save for a low boxwood edge along the front façade.

All of its garden appeal, which is significant, is located inside the museum courtyard. There, permanent and seasonal plantings create a most inviting, intimate and luxuriant environment in keeping with the wishes of the museum’s benefactress. The museum has a national reputation and is major tourist destination.

Illustration 20 – Collage of photographs: Stewart Gardner Museum

Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum

- 20 -

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Massachusetts Last but not least, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston is a museum with an international reputation and is the grandest of all the museums in this survey. It has extensive collections from many periods and many traditions. The museum’s building, due to additions, has two primary entrances and façades: The classical façade &

entry, which is symmetrical, grand and features an extensive semi-circular green sward (tapis vert) with an imposing statue of an Indian chief on horseback in its center.

The modernistic façade and

main entrance, which features a modern sculpture by de Koonig, and is landscaped sparsely with a simple and beautiful line of pin oaks whose trunk and limb architecture Illustration 21 – Collage of photographs: Museum of Fine Arts echoes perfectly the very modernistic tone of the whole façade and entry.

Conclusions This brief survey of museums yielded the following major conclusion relative to this project:

There is no typical museum landscape. However, many museums use the adjacent landscape to instill a sense of grandeur, to facilitate orientation and access, to highlight the buildings.

Signage is critical and many museums use banners of other explicit well-designed signage mechanisms to highlight the presence of the museum on its street or in its area. The landscape thereby present a unique opportunity to develop point-of-entry marketing of the museum.

Important elements include: signage, outdoor and nearby seating, an entrance with an appropriate grandeur.

In general, the more successful museum landscapes develop a dialogue with the content and focus of the museum (Peabody-Essex) or with the museum buildings themselves (Museum of Fine Arts).

Boston Museum

of Fine Arts

- 21 -

DESIGN CONCEPTUALIZATION

- 22 -

Principal Conceptual Issues to Solve Prior to Designing Armed as I was with the design intent derived from my site and site vicinity analyses, and fresh with the inspiration gleaned from visiting other museums, there were two further principal issues that had to be solved prior to designing. These were:

Reducing the dominance of the current parking configuration.

Identifying a design style that would be satisfactory to the Director, the Facilities Committee and the Board of Trustees of the Danforth Museum of Art.

Reducing the Dominance of the Existing Parking Plan The existing parking configuration (see Illustration below) clearly had to be modified:

The current area available for landscaping is small (about 40% of all available area with no structures).

The parking areas form an asphalt girdle around the building. The access for pedestrians is completely intertwined with vehicular

circulation. Cars cut through the Danforth parking lot to make a U-turn on Union Ave,

due to the configuration of the one-way streets (Pearl and Lexington).

Existing Parking Conditions

Around front of Danforth Museum of Art:

• 45 regular 9’ x 18’ parking spaces

• 2 Handicapped spaces next to rear elevator on Pearl Street

Parking consumes >60% of available land

Pedestrian circulation is dangerous = meshed with vehicular traffic

Significant usage bynon-Danforth vehicles

H H

Elevator

12 s

pace

s10

spa

ces

8 sp

aces

6 sp

aces

4 spaces 5 spaces

Trash

Illustration 22 – Existing parking configuration around the Danforth

- 23 -

Fortunately, the site vicinity analysis (see prior Illustration 8) had uncovered the existence of a three-story public parking structure adjacent to the museum on Lexington Street (see sketch below). This structure had a total capacity of 125 spaces but was designated as reserved for the Framingham Public Library.

I performed a series of observations during the fall of 2006, and found a maximum usage of 75 cars, with an average usage closer to 35. I also observed that the Danforth parking areas were heavily used by persons not working in, visiting or taking classes at the museum – these were municipal employees and other ordinary visitors to downtown Framingham.

Illustration 23 – Sketch of public parking on Lexington Street I then submitted a number of parking configurations to the Director of the Museum and their Facilities Committee (illustration at right). Many of these used up too much area for driving lanes or failed to protect pedestrians. They also forced parking access from only one of the side streets. Some of them resulted in an excessive loss of parking space.

Illustration 24 – Alternative parking configurations, not selected In the final analysis, the simplest configuration shown in the next illustration is the configuration that best met the requirements:

1. Maximum area for landscape 2. Best separation of pedestrians and vehicles 3. Best access from both Pearl and Lexington Streets 4. Ease of implementation

Parking Structure on Lexington Street• Capacity: 125 spaces on 3 floors

• Appears “reserved” for Framingham Public Library

• Numerous observations yielded peak usage of 75 cars (autumn)

• Average usage is around 35 cars

• Needs:Resurfacing concreteImproved lightingGood internal signageColorful painting by floorGood signage directing trafficto its existence

• Could be used by:Danforth staff and peak visitorsMunicipal employees currentlyusing Danforth lotChurch attendees on Sundaysusing Danforth lot

Alternate Modified Parking Layoutsfor the front of the Danforth Museum of Art

- 24 -

The Director of the Framingham Public Library was advised, the plans that follow were presented to the Framingham Downtown Renaissance committee, and it appears that there is support for the design plan shown below, which results in a net loss of 15 spaces around the Danforth. This net loss is considered acceptable given increased usage of the public parking structure on Lexington Street.

Proposed Parking Modification – Initial Sketch

• Including 7 spaces on North side of Danforth building, results in net loss of 14 spaces

• Frees up whole front of Museum for green space

• Benefits Museum, local community and “greens”downtown area substantially

• Access from both one-way streets (Pearl & Lexington)

• Direct drive-in spaces minimizes driveway areas

Illustration 25 – Sketch of proposed reconfigured parking areas

Recommendations for improving the appearance and increasing the usage of the public parking structure on Lexington Street include:

Resurfacing concrete Improved lighting Good internal signage (library and museum Colorful painting by floor Good signage directing traffic

to its existence Creating a passageway directly from garage to Pearl Street through a

currently fenced 12-foot wide alley.

- 25 -

Design Style As much as I wanted to give the design my own personal imprint, I realized it was important to have the support of the museum’s Director, and the museum’s Facilities Committee. I wanted to ascertain the stylistic preferences of these key participants in the process. The first step was therefore to produce a number of sketches, in an assortment of different approaches. Some of these are illustrated below.

Illustration 26 – Two sample design sketches – five-pointed star motif

These two were based on a five-pointed star motif, which reflected an exhibition by David Cole that was on the display at the time within the museum. It was determined the symbolism of the star was too strong and may become dated over time. The theme of diagonal exes and some symmetry was helpful.

This was an asymmetrical design, emphasizing pedestrian access from the downtown. It developed the notion of a more public open plaza on one side versus a more enclosed museum-specific seating area on the other.

Illustration 27 – Sample design sketches – asymmetry and dual plazas It was felt, however that this was too modern and urban (perhaps suited to the downtown of a city with skyrises) but did not quite fit with the more traditional architecture of the building and the subdued character of downtown Framingham.

- 26 -

Later, the following sketches were deemed much closer to what was desired. Key elements here were:

Overall symmetry to match the façade

Some asymmetry for interest

Use of the diagonal visual axes for access

Inner and outer plazas

Trees along the Union Avenue

Enclosed spaces for seating and perhaps sculpture viewing

A certain feeling of “grandeur”

Illustration 28 – Concept sketches – plan and façade elevation – acceptable and closer to final

These sketches can be defined as being somewhat post-modern in style, with crisp, clean lines, some formalism (grids of trees) and some reference to a classic symmetry, but also reinterpreted with a more modern vernacular of clear geometry but minimal ornamentation.

- 26 -

FINAL MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT

- 27 -

This section will describe in detail first the design for the Danforth Museum itself, then the design for the Harry McCann Park. Design for the Danforth Museum of Art This design was expressed in a series of plan views, and 1”= 10’ scale model of the design was built for purposes of illustration and communication to the stakeholders. Many of the illustrative pictures in the following sections are pictures taken of specific views in the mode. The black & white plan view for the museum design follows:

Illustration 29 – Museum Design, Plan View – inner and outer plazas and diagonal axes

The inner and outer plazas can be seen, with the water features, in the following photograph of the model.

Note how the façade is glimpsed only partially from the street, and then further broken up by the tall conifers in the shoulders of the building wings. It is anticipated that the water features may include low fountains and waterproof sculptures for winter interest when the water is not flowing. Illustration 30 – Museum Model – view from the

front Union Avenue side

Inner museum plaza & forecourt

Outer museum public plaza

Axial pedestrian access focused

Axial pedestrian access focused

- 28 -

Illustration 31 – Museum Model – View along the diagonal pedestrian axes

In the model views above, one can see the diagonal pedestrian access. The main front door of the museum is visible, acting both as a “pull” to attract visitors and a clear signal of where to go without the need for extensive signage. The door is framed by the vegetation and the ends of the low seating wall, which lends a certain formalism to the diagonal approaches. The following schematic on the plan view illustrates how the design clearly separates pedestrian from vehicular flows, ensuring the safety of the former. Access to and from the museum to the parking areas is also simple and straightforward.

Illustration 32 – Plan view schematic – Separation of pedestrian and vehicular flows

Parking area Pedestrian circulation Vehicular circulation

- 29 -

This illustration and the photographs below show the enclosed seating areas, which can be used for conversation, reading or viewing judiciously placed sculptures. The museum’s Facilities Committee would be responsible for selection of sculpture locations.

Illustration 33 – Seating areas

Illustration 34 – Museum model – Sample enclosed seating areas

Benches of the type illustrated below (circular or straight, preferably metal) would be sited appropriately in all these seating

Illustration 35 – Product sample – Typical benches that could be used

Semi-circle seating Semi-circle seating Semi-circle seating

Lawn

- 30 -

Topography changes

The green areas in the illustration at left would be 18”- 24”above grade. This adds topographical interest, increases the sense of enclosure in the inner forecourt of the museum, and last but not least, provides additional soil depth for the numerous trees and shrubs planted in these areas.

Illustration 36 – Museum Design – plan view of elevated areas The raised areas are bounded by small seating walls (24 – 30 inches high), as illustrated in the model pictures below and the photo sample from an existing area.

Illustration 37 – Model an actual site photos – low retaining walls suitable for seating On the sides not bounded by retaining walls, the raised areas would end with a tapered 2:1 slope. These slopes, built with high-quality soil, make ideal planting beds for annuals and perennials. Illustrations of this type of bed are shown below, as installed and maintained in Paris, France. Ideally, the Framingham Gardn Club would take on responsibility for the perreniel and/or annual plantings along these slopes.

Illustration 38 –Photographs of 2:1 sloped beds with annuals in Paris, France

Sloped annual Sloped annual Sloped annual

Areas raised by 24” abutting 30” Areas raised by 24” abutting 30” Areas raised by

TOPOGRAPHICAL

- 31 -

Recommended Paving Materials The areas shaded in terracotta and ochre brick are paved in this design. Many materials could be used, but it is recommended to use warm tones that echo the yellow brick of the museum façade. It might be considered to use a brick similar to the lighter ornage brick used in front of the Memorial Building (Town Hall) in Framingham, a couple of Illustration 39 –Plan view of museum design with paving areas blocks further downtown. Samples of the downtown brick are provided below.

Illustration 40 –Samples of brick paving from the Framingham Memorial Building plaza Other samples of pavers made from concrete to simulate brick paving include:

Illustration 41 –Product samples of pavers imitating Brussels block or brick made from concrete Using paving that creates a design unity with the paving used for downtown’s central plaza next to the Memorial Building would ensure a sense of continuity of downtown identity that is instrumental to the overall quality of the downtown visual experience.

- 32 -

Proposed Plant Material TREES 1. Street trees:

Red maple (acer rubrum) columnar form to match Memorial Hall

plantings & provide some transparency 2. Entryways: spring flowering trees:

Cherry (prunus sargentii) Crabapple (malus ‘Donald Wyman’) Redbud (cercis canadensis)

3. Along parking: Katsura (cercidiphyllum japonicum) Ginkgo (ginkgo biloba columnar)

4. To punctuate façade: Oriental spruce (picea orientalis)

columnar, red cones, formal in shape Columnar yew (taxus cuspidata)

SHRUBS Indicated by the 5 legend, specific locations to be determined.

Shade: * Rhododendron * Summersweet (clethra alnifolia) * Sweetspire (itea virginica) * Drooping leucothoe (leucothoe fontanesiana) * Mountain laurel (kalmia latifolia)

Partial sun: * Inkberry (ilex glabra) * Winterberry (ilex verticillata) * Slender deutzia (deutzia gracilis)

Full sun: * Spirea (spirea bumalda/japonica) – gold –leafed type * Dwarf lilac (syringa ‘miss kim’) * Siberian carpet cypress (microbiata decussata) * Beauty bush (weigela florida) * Daphne (daphne burkwoodii) OTHER PLANTINGS 6. Groundcover:

Liriope Ajuga

7. Lawn areas 8. Annual/perennials

(ideally selected by local garden clubs or community members)

1

1

12 2

3

3

4 4

55

55

6 6

7

7

77

8 8

88

8

8

- 33 -

Proposed lighting plan The illustration below shows a proposed lighting plan, which includes 4 distinct lighting systems:

1. Street Lighting This would presumably be selected, funded and installed by the Town of Framingham to be of a type unfied with the lighting selected for downtown Framingham. It would extend along Union Avenue, and down one side of both Pearl and Lexington streets (preferably on the opposite from the museum so as to not interfere with the proposed parking configuration).

2. Lights for the museum banners

The proposed banners along Union Avenue in front of the museum would presumably have their own illumination system so as to be readable during darkness.

Illustration 42 –Proposed lighting plan with 4 distinct types of lighting

3. Lighted bollards for pedestrian walkways

These would be similar to the type illustrated at left and would provide downward facing lighting for all the pedestrian walkways in the front of the museum. Their exact location, strength and quantity needs to be determined by a lighting engineer.

Illustration 43 –Sample pathway lighted bollard

- 34 -

4. Floodlights to illuminate the façade A sample floodlight façade is shown at left. The Danforth façade is impressive and illumination would highlight its neo-classical symmetry and give “grandeur” the the Museum. To save energy, these could be activated only on evenings for special events or town-wide celebrations.

Illustration 44 –Sample illuminated façade

- 35 -

Harry McCann Park As explained previously, a design for the Harry McCann public park was added to the project due to the interest of the Town of Framingham, for whom this park would be the center of the Arts & Culture triangle. The park’s relative location to the museum is shown at right. It’s shape is a right triangle with sides of about 120 and 100 feet, and a hypothenuse of about 160 feet. Traffic is one-way on Pearl and Thomson street and fairly minimal. The park is in a residential area.

Illustration 45 – Relative locations of museum and public park The park is currently in a state of considerable disrepair, as shown in the photographs below.

Illustration 46 – Photos of Harry McCann Park in current condition

- 36 -

After review of a number of sketches, the concept sketch below was selected for this park. A sketch model was constructed to illustrate the slightly raised planting areas (raised towards the enclosing walls. This design concept highlights the following:

This design echoes the design for the Danforth Museum Use of circles intersecting principal paths Similar paving material Use of minimal topography for the planting areas (3:1 slopes rise slowly

to 3ft. enclosing walls to a height of about 2 feet)

The 3ft. protective wall gives park users a sense of security from oncoming traffic (walls are placed where traffic approaches along one-way streets)

The seating provided is cozy within the circular areas, but visible from the street so that the local police can see if anyone is in there during the dark.

4 welcoming entrances encourage pedestrians to use the park to either sit or walk through. The passageways form an informal X that allows for pedestrian traffic in a number of directions.

The overall park area has more then 50% greenery despite substantive paved areas for passage and seating.

> 50% greenery

The paved space provided could be used for a variety of activities: Small outdoor receptions Neighborhood BBQs A few folding tables could be set up in the larger circle

Illustration 47 – Proposed design concept for Harry McCann Park

- 37 -

A water feature is proposed midway along the hypotenuse of the triangle, to be surrounded by blue fescue (festuca glauca ‘Elijah Blue’), which likes full sun and is drought-tolerant. The two large trees in the angles of the park are existing Bradford pears, that would be retained since they are in good condition. The lawn areas are minimal and have been designed to make the mowing simple with a small walk-behind mower. Other proposed planting include: TREES

Add a grouping of a spring flowering tree, identical to the type selected for the Danforth Museum (i.e. one of malus/cercis/prunus)

SHRUBS

It is recommended to use the same palette of shrubs as those that would be selected for the Danforth museum. These are:

Shade * Rhododendron (white) * Clethra alnifolia * Itea virginica * Leucothoe fontanesiana * Kalmia latifolia

Partial sun * Ilex glabra * Ilex verticillata * Deutzia gracilis

Sun * Spirea * Syringa ‘Miss Kim’ (dwarf) * Microbiata decussata * Weigela florida * Daphne burkwoodii

- 38 -

Conclusion Implementation of this project will require continued interest and buy-in from the Danforth Museum Board of Trustees, the Danforth Facilities Committee and the Director of the museum. It will require buy-in and continued support from the Town of Framingham. Most important, many sources of funding need to be examined (arts & culture grants, neighborhood and community improvement grants, private fund-raising, etc.) The designs may need to be refined and certain specifications (choice of paving, lighting and plantings) will need to be refined. Construction details and documents will probably need to be made for specific Hardscape elements. The proposed designs would make a significant impact on the perception of the Danforth Museum of Art itself, and on this portion of Framingham’s downtown area. It is our sincere hope that this project will lead to implementation.

- 39 -

BIBLIOGRAPHY • Dan Kiley – The Complete Works of America’s Master Landscape Architect, Dan

Kiley and Jane Amidon, Bulfinch Press, 1999.

• Envisioning New England: Treasures from Community Art Museums, Pamela J. Belanger, editor, University Press of New England, 2004.

• Groundswell: Constructing the Contemporary Landscape, Peter Reed, Museum of Modern Art, February 2005.

• Images of America: Framingham, Laurie Evans-Daly & David C. Gordon, Framingham Historical Society publication, 1997.

• Ken Smith Landscape Architects/Urban Projects. Editors: Jane Amidon, Ken Smith, Nina Rappaport, Princeton Architectural Press, December 2005.

• Landscape and Images, John R. Stilgoe, 1st edition, University of Virginia Press, 2005

• Landscape Architect’s Portable Handbook, Nicholas Dine and Kyle Brown, McGraw Hill, 2001

• Landscape Architecture: A Manual of Site Planning and Design, John Ormsbee Simonds, 3rd edition, McGraw-Hill, 1997

• Marketing the Museum, Fiona McLean, Taylor & Francis, January 1997.

• Modern Landscape Architecture, A Critical Review, Edited by Marc Trieb, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1992.

• Museum Builders II, Laura Hourston, John Wiley & Sons, February 2004.

• Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture. Editors: Ivan Karp, Christine Kreamer, Stephen Lavine. Smithsonian Institutions Press, May 1992.

• Museums, Society, Inequality, Richard Sandell, Taylor & Francis, May 2002.

• On the Beaten Track: Tourism, Art and Place, Lucy Lippard, The New Press, September 2000.

• Overlay: Contemporary Art and the Art of Prehistory, Lucy Lippard, The New Press, April, 1995.

• Reinventing the Museum: Historical and Contemporary Perspective on the Paradigm Shift, Gail Anderson, Altamira Press, December 2003.

• Roberto Burle Marx: The Unnatural Art of the Garden, William Howard Adams, The Museum of Modern Art, 1991

• Site Planning, Kevin Lynch and Gary Hack, 3rd edition, MIT Press, 1984.

• The Architecture of Happiness, Alain de Botton, Knopf, Oct. 2006

- 40 -

APPENDIX A

INITIAL PROJECT PROPOSAL

Submitted in October 2006

The Project

During 2006, staff of the Danforth Museum of Art in downtown Framingham,

Massachusetts contacted the non-profit group, Community Outreach Group (COG

Design) to enquire about receiving pro bono landscape design services to improve

their outside areas.

Being in close contact with COG Design over the past several months, I heard about

this request and urged both sides to meet and discuss the project. An initial meeting

between the Director of the Danforth, Katherine French, Lucia Droby of COG Design

and me took place on Monday, October 2nd, 2006. Overall objectives, concerns,

obstacles, landscape design process parameters were discussed. I subsequently

drafted a Letter of Agreement (Appendix B), outlining these major points, which has

been signed by both parties.

Personal interest

My personal interest in this project stems from a number of converging factors:

• an overall interest in public design

• the challenge of working with a neglected urban site in a mid-size town or

city

• a personal history of working in Framingham’s high-tech areas for 15+

years

• an interest in art and art history

- 41 -

• my frequent passage through downtown Framingham due to the proximity

of my residence

• my interest in the expanding Brazilian immigrant population in

Framingham

• a prior educational background in urban planning

Framingham, Massachusetts

On October 4th, 1994, President Clinton visited the Town of Framingham with Sen.

Edward Kennedy and other notables and is officially quoted as saying: “Framingham

is just like America”1. Indeed, does seem like a prototypical small American city in its

recent history, its demographics and its visual ‘look and feel’.

With a population of 66910 (US Census, 2000), Framingham is the largest ‘town’ in

the Northeast (not incorporated as a city and using a town meeting form of

government). It is listed with 364 cities/towns in the U.S. that all have a population

between 50,000 and 99,9992. It is thus a good archetype for a ‘mid-sized’ town/city.

Framingham was incorporated in 1700, and grew mainly in the 19th century due its

position on primary east-west rail routes into Boston. It featured a strong

manufacturing base up until the 1980s, featuring a large General Motors Assembly

plant, and a large Dennison factory (office

supplies) – these both closed in the mid-

1980s. Since then, the town has

accommodated many high-technology

companies such as Prime Computer,

IDG/IDC, Meditech and more recently

1 The event and quote are documented in the Framingham Town Hall, Memorial Hall, to the left as you enter. 2 There are 241 US cities with populations larger than 100,000 and 643 towns/cities with populations in the 25,000 – 49,999 range, the category just below (source: www.wikipedia.com). 1 - View down Union Ave towards downtown

- 42 -

Genzyme, Bose Corporation, Staples and others.

While the manufacturing companies were located close to the railways and

Framingham’s downtown, these new employers are further north along Route 9 and

the Mass Turnpike. Downtown Framingham has seen a serious downturn in the

1980s and 1990s, which is only just beginning to turn around. Just down Union

Avenue from the Danforth Museum, the Framingham Town Hall (also called the

Memorial Building) has received a complete facelift in 2002 (?), including new tasteful

landscaping on and around the central downtown traffic rotary and the small plaza

in front of the building.

The north of Framingham is very suburban and residential, with predominantly

middle and upper-middle class residents who work in the area or commute to

Boston. Parts of north Framingham are very wealthy and are much more comparable

to other “wealthy” suburbs in the Metrowest region outside Boston.

An additional important component has been Framingham’s attraction to a large and

increasing Brazilian community, both legal and illegal, which is estimated at

anywhere between 5,000 (2000 census) and 17,000 (Brazilian Immigrant Center).3

Especially in the downtown area where the

Danforth Museum is located, most of the

shops and other commercial entities feature

Brazilian flags, advertise their fluency in

Portuguese and solicit Brazilian patronage.

3 A large portion of the discrepancy is due first to the issue of legal vs. illegal immigration, and second to the definition of “Hispanic”. Many Brazilians do not consider themselves Hispanic (being of Portuguese culture) and thus census categories do not list them as other than white or ‘other’.

- 43 -

Framingham is thus a uniquely diversified community, both in terms of ethnicity and

socio-economic status. Uniquely among Massachusetts towns and small cities, it is

as diverse as cities such as Cambridge or Somerville, but without the large presence

of students and academics.

The Danforth Museum sits within this diversity, and already attracts patrons and

students for its arts classes from all these segments of the population, with the

potential to appeal to many more. Part of this project will be to determine which

communities participate already in the Danforth’s activities, and which ones have a

lot of potential.

Danforth Museum of Art

The Danforth Museum of Art was established as a non-profit in 1973, funded by a

group of local residents and named after Thomas Danforth, colonial owner of a large

land grant covering the western area of Boston, including Framingham.

The Danforth is an archetypical “community art museum” that focuses on art

produced by past and current American

artists, primarily from the New England

region, and primarily from the 19th and 20th

centuries.

The museum has permanent collections and

rotating special exhibitions. It is also well-

known for its well-developed art class

programs, catering to both adults and

children. It has a small Museum shop and a small fine arts library.

The current Director, Katherine French has only been with the Museum for 18

months, and is dynamically working to grow the museum along many dimensions, in

- 44 -

the content of the exhibits, the classes and programs, the facilities, etc. Mrs. French

is enthusiastic and seems eager to take some risks in the artwork she selects, and

the innovations she is bringing to the museum. She promotes the Danforth as a

“local museum with a national reputation”.

The museum building is an old high 4- story high school built in (?), that has been

partially renovated (new windows) but still needs major updating (heating, cooling

and plumbing). There are currently 3 statues “plopped down” in the front lawn. The

outside of the building has been neglected for a long time, has very little existing

plant material, but an overabundance of asphalt parking spaces used by many

people not affiliated with the museum.

The building is currently leased by the Danforth non-profit, and up for renewal. The

building and land are owned by the Town of Framingham.

Precedents

The importance of attractive landscapes for various arts & culture centers in

America’s large cities has been amply documented and is evidenced by the large

amounts of effort and monies that have been expended in many cases. Also, many of

America’s leading landscape designers (Dan Kiley, Lawrence Halprin, and others)

have focused on the landscapes of large city museums, libraries and concert halls.

However, there is less documentation and information available on similar efforts for

smaller cities and large towns, under the 100,000 population threshold.

During the site analysis phase of this project, I will look at the similarities and

differences between this site and the landscapes of a range of community art

museums and private museums in towns and cities of Massachusetts. I may also

examine a few select museum landscapes for larger cities, as executed by noted

landscape architects.

- 45 -

I hope that these limited excursions to comparable museums and art centers in

towns of comparable size will be inspirational and lend some insight into the

modalities of design that are considered successful by these communities.

Primary Scope of Work

The Director of the Danforth Museum has outlined 4 primary objectives for this

project:

1. Design outdoor landscaped spaces that will enable optimal placement and

viewing of any outside sculptures that may be displayed by the Danforth

Museum of Art on its grounds.

2. Design a landscape for the front of the Museum (facing Union Avenue) of

much greater visual appeal, which is safe, inviting and commensurate with

the entrance to an art museum.

3. Design improvements to the parking, vehicular and pedestrian circulation

around the museum that is safe, provides adequate parking and seating,

does not dominate the landscape.

4. Design one or more spaces for possible rotating exhibits of outdoor art,

possibly including some types of light sculpture.

Additional Scope of Work

The Danforth Museum is one of the three components of Framingham’s “Arts &

Culture” triangle. The other elements include a small triangular park adjacent to the

Danforth’s southeast side, the Framingham Public Library situated at the other end

of the same 4-acre city block, and the Framingham Community Center located on

nearby Concord Street (route 126).

The Framingham Community Center is clearly far enough to be outside the scope of

this project. However, it makes complete sense to include in the site analysis and

conceptual design process all of the structures present on the 4-acre block

- 46 -

(Framingham Public Library, public parking structure, Framingham Boys & Girls

Center) and the adjacent triangular J. Harry McCann park (see 11 x 17 Site Map

attached).

A complete and final landscape design development process will only be implemented

for the Danforth Museum of Art.

Site Planning Process and Deliverables

The process followed will include standard site and master planning methodologies.

The principal components and deliverables will include:

• Base site plan of existing conditions (Danforth and adjacent areas)

• Site analysis (users, circulation, existing plant material, visual experience,

sun/wind/water, seasonal influence, drainage/storm runoff)

• Precedent/comparables study of other museum landscapes (Museum of

Fine Arts, Stewart Gardner, other community art museums in New

England).

• Review of selected museum landscapes by accomplished landscape

architects.

• Initial conceptual design sketches

• Three design concepts

• Revised design development (based on input from Independent Project

students and faculty, Director of Danforth, Planning Committee of the

Danforth Board of Trustees)

• Final Design drawings and visual presentation materials

• Plant material recommendations

• Hardscape and materials recommendations & estimates

• Maintenance recommendations

- 47 -

Meetings and Consultations with Client

Appropriate meetings will de scheduled with the Director of the Danforth Museum of

Art, the Danforth Facilities Committee and other museum staff as needed or

requested.

In addition, I will be in contact with a number of Framingham Town officials as

needed

• Secure maps and site technical information pertinent to the project

• Determine availability and requirements for Community Block Grants

• Present final design materials

Timelines and Schedule

Approximate milestones include:

• By December 31st, 2006 - Collect support materials and maps, perform

field work for site analysis produce base site map, preliminary Danforth

and Framingham meetings

• By February 1st , 2007 – Complete site analysis, complete precedent

studies

• – Produce and present 2-3 design alternatives to Danforth (appropriate

individuals), perhaps some Town of Framingham representatives

• By March 1st , 2007 – Three design concept

• By April 5th, 2007 – Final design drawings and visual materials

• May, 2007 – Independent Project Presentation at the Landscape Institute

- 48 -

APPENDIX B

FOLD-OUT DESIGNS & MAPS

Please note that due to reduction, the scale indicated on the drawings is

valid on the original 24”x 36”. It is different on the copies.

1. Museum Design Concept: scale on copy is ~1”= 22ft.

2. Arts & Culture Master Plan: scale on copy is ~1”= 44ft.

3. Downtown & Vicinity: scale on copy is ~1” = 140ft.