USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Ecological coexistence

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Ecological coexistence a nature retreat and education center on Rattlesnake Key, Terra Ceia, Florida
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Peterika, Richard F
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Applied Ecology
Habitat Creation
Coastal Construction
Sustainable Site
Biomimicry
Dissertations, Academic -- Architecture -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: Applied ecology has been used to design communities around the world; however suburban neighborhoods in west central Florida do not usually utilize existing or potential ecological function as a modeling parameter or success measure. Since the end of the great depression, developments in the Tampa Bay Area have displaced many wetland and upland natural communities. Private ownership and development of sensitive natural lands have restricted their use and hampered the functional longevity of important ecological systems in this area. These displaced areas have historically functioned as habitat for many types of animal life, have passively conveyed nutrient loads, and have facilitated the succession of organisms. They have also been used as recreational opportunities for local residents and visitors, children and adults. Applied ecological design usually occurs at a community or master plan scale, or separately at a singular building level, but rarely both simultaneously.This design proposal was the investigation and formation of an ecocentric architectural design methodology for coastal environments; from master plan to conceptual building design. The scope was the synthesis of a recreational tourism facility with the existing ecological communities of Rattlesnake Key, a barrier island in northwest Manatee County, Florida. The program included an ecological education center, where visitors could learn about their relationship with the ecological communities present on the island, and a group of cabins, where inhabitants could interact with each other and the surrounding natural communities intimately. Master planning strategies were outlined using extensive ecological mapping overlays, in-field observation, and feasibility analysis. Building forms, means of construction, and structural systems were created by integrating biomimicry methods, habitat restoration techniques, and sustainable practices into a programmed, built environment.The results of the investigation were a series of physical models and graphic representations of spaces that manifest the sensitive relationship between human inhabitance and ecological function; where both processes coexist and support the longevity and persistence of one another through habitat creation. By analyzing the existing ecological functions present on a site, a designer could propose a typology that strengthens the relationship between man and his environment; where development is no longer displacement.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.Arch.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Richard F. Peterika.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 92 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 002007043
oclc - 401309978
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0002753
usfldc handle - e14.2753
System ID:
SFS0027070:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 002007043
003 fts
005 20090616120422.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 090616s2008 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002753
035
(OCoLC)401309978
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
NA2520 (Online)
1 100
Peterika, Richard F.
0 245
Ecological coexistence :
b a nature retreat and education center on Rattlesnake Key, Terra Ceia, Florida
h [electronic resource] /
by Richard F. Peterika.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
2008.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 92 pages.
502
Thesis (M.Arch.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
520
ABSTRACT: Applied ecology has been used to design communities around the world; however suburban neighborhoods in west central Florida do not usually utilize existing or potential ecological function as a modeling parameter or success measure. Since the end of the great depression, developments in the Tampa Bay Area have displaced many wetland and upland natural communities. Private ownership and development of sensitive natural lands have restricted their use and hampered the functional longevity of important ecological systems in this area. These displaced areas have historically functioned as habitat for many types of animal life, have passively conveyed nutrient loads, and have facilitated the succession of organisms. They have also been used as recreational opportunities for local residents and visitors, children and adults. Applied ecological design usually occurs at a community or master plan scale, or separately at a singular building level, but rarely both simultaneously.This design proposal was the investigation and formation of an ecocentric architectural design methodology for coastal environments; from master plan to conceptual building design. The scope was the synthesis of a recreational tourism facility with the existing ecological communities of Rattlesnake Key, a barrier island in northwest Manatee County, Florida. The program included an ecological education center, where visitors could learn about their relationship with the ecological communities present on the island, and a group of cabins, where inhabitants could interact with each other and the surrounding natural communities intimately. Master planning strategies were outlined using extensive ecological mapping overlays, in-field observation, and feasibility analysis. Building forms, means of construction, and structural systems were created by integrating biomimicry methods, habitat restoration techniques, and sustainable practices into a programmed, built environment.The results of the investigation were a series of physical models and graphic representations of spaces that manifest the sensitive relationship between human inhabitance and ecological function; where both processes coexist and support the longevity and persistence of one another through habitat creation. By analyzing the existing ecological functions present on a site, a designer could propose a typology that strengthens the relationship between man and his environment; where development is no longer displacement.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
590
Advisor: Steven A. Cooke, M.Arch.
653
Applied Ecology
Habitat Creation
Coastal Construction
Sustainable Site
Biomimicry
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Architecture
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.2753



PAGE 1

Ecological Coexistence: A Nature Retreat and Education Center on Rattlesnake Key, Terra Ceia, Florida by Richard F. Peterika of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture School of Architecture and Community Design College of Visual and Performing Arts University of South Florida Major Professor: Steven A. Cooke, M.Arch. Mark W. Weston, M.Arch. Thomas F. Levin, ASLA, AICP Date of Approval: November 21, 2008 Keywords: Applied Ecology, Habitat Creation, Coastal Construction, Sustainable Site, Biomimicry Copyright 2008 Richard F. Peterika

PAGE 2

Dedication To all of my family and all of my friends

PAGE 3

Acknowledgments Without the help and support of the following people, this document would not have been realized. University of South Florida School of Architecture + Design Ron Dulaney | Steven Cooke | Enrique Larranaga Robert Hudson | Stanley Russell | Rick Rados Trent Green | Vikas Mehta | Vanessa Estrada Mark Weston Manatee County Mosquito Control | Mark Latham Will Miller Architects | William Miller Tampa Baywatch | Capt. Peter Clark Brooker Creek Nature Preserve | Holly Sharalipour Ekistics Design Studio, Inc | Thomas F. Levin and Patricia Stalnaker-Levin Friends and Colleagues Christopher Podes | Mark Blazer | Sarah Sisson Alison Thom | Ben Cabrera | Deji Oguntebi | Jeffrey Irwin Jane Ventrone | Sean Mullican Nicole Lara Dodd Family Lamasi and Mary-Chris Peterika Aliitasi Peterika | Edward Peterika Heather Peterika | Sarah Peterika Richard and Margaret White Barbara and Rene Colmenares Kristy Colmenares Katy and Jim Shultman

PAGE 4

Table of Contents iList of Tables ................................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. i v Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... viii Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Case Studies ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Upper Tampa Bay Park 6 Abstract 6 Analysis 7 Conclusions 9 Atlantic Center for the Arts 1 0 Abstract 1 0 Analysis 1 2 Conclusions 1 4 Site Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 1 6 Ecology Mapping 1 7 Data Collection 1 7 Overlay Analysis 2 0 Processes as Values 2 0 Site Selection 2 4 Precedence Studies ......................................................................................................................... 2 7 Government Canyon Visitor Center 2 8 Water Conveyance 2 8 Exterior and Interior 2 9 Supplemental Information 3 0 World Birding Center Headquarters 3 1 Water Conservation and Use 3 1 Exterior and Interior Space 3 2 Supplemental Information 3 3 Pocono Environmental Education Center 3 4 Adaptability 3 4

PAGE 5

iiSupplemental Information 3 4 Conclusions 3 6 Program Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 3 8 Schematic Master Plan 4 0 Conceptual Master Plan 4 2 Habitat Creation .............................................................................................................................. 4 6 Least Terns 4 7 Ospreys 4 9 Design Proposal .............................................................................................................................. 5 1 Schematic Design 5 2 Cabin Schemes 5 3 Education Center 5 9 Cabin in the mangroves 6 1 Conceptual Design 6 1 Ecological Education Center 6 2 Design Solution 6 5 Master Plan Focus Area 6 5 Cabins in the Mangroves 6 7 Ecological Education Center 7 1 Conclusion 7 5 Works Cited .................................................................................................................................... 7 6 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................... 7 8 Appendix 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 8 1 Appendix 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 8 4 Appendix 3 ...................................................................................................................................... 8 7 Appendix 4 ...................................................................................................................................... 9 0

PAGE 6

List of Tables iii Table 1: Program sizes and relationships ....................................................................................... 4 4 Table 2: Program Elements ............................................................................................................ 4 5

PAGE 7

List of Figures iv Figure 1: Clearwater Beach ............................................................................................................. 1 Figure 2: Birds Eye View of study area ........................................................................................... 6 Figure 3: Aerial photograph showing panoramic photograph positions .......................................... 7 Figure 4: Hydroperiod indications at the edge of a mangrove fringe ............................................. 8 Figure 5: Panoramic photograph of a mangrove fringe ecological community ............................. 8 Figure 6: Panoramic photograph of a high marsh/salt barren community ..................................... 9 Figure 7: Ecological cross section and plan .................................................................................... 9 Figure 8: Panoramic photograph of a high marsh/salt barren ecological community .................. 1 0 Figure 9: Site Map .......................................................................................................................... 1 1 Figure 10: Spatial conditions under the building .......................................................................... 1 3 Figure 11: Boardwalk .................................................................................................................... 1 3 Figure 12: Cloaking ...................................................................................................................... 1 4 Figure 13: Roberson Dance Studio interface with existing vegetation ........................................ 1 4 Figure 14: Pabst Visitor Center and Gallery Rainwater Collection Detail ................................... 1 5 Figure 15: Five Layers of an Ecology Map ................................................................................... 1 7 Figure 16: Rattlesnake Key Ecology Map .................................................................................... 1 8 Figure 17: Soil Types ..................................................................................................................... 1 9 ....................................................... 1 9 Figure 19: Processes and Components ......................................................................................... 2 0 Figure 20: Stage One .................................................................................................................... 2 1 Figure 21: Stage Two .................................................................................................................... 2 2 .................................................................................................. 2 3 Figure 23: Vegetative Density sketch ............................................................................................ 2 3 Figure 24: Breeze intensity sketch ................................................................................................ 2 3 Figure 25: Schematic Model of the Government Canyon Visitor Center ..................................... 2 8 Figure 26: Water Conveyance Diagram ........................................................................................ 2 9 Figure 27: Cisterns ......................................................................................................................... 2 9 Figure 28: Exterior Space Diagram .............................................................................................. 3 0 Figure 29: Interior Space Diagram ............................................................................................... 3 0 Figure 30: Schematic Model of the World Birding Center Headquarters .................................... 3 1

PAGE 8

v Figure 31: Water Consumption and Use Diagram ........................................................................ 3 2 Figure 32: Birders Cafe ................................................................................................................. 3 2 Figure 33: Exterior Space Diagram .............................................................................................. 3 3 Figure 34: Interior Space Diagram ............................................................................................... 3 3 Figure 35: Schematic Model of the Pocono Environmental Education Center ............................ 3 4 Figure 37: Exterior Space Diagram .............................................................................................. 3 5 Figure 36: Interior Space Diagram ............................................................................................... 3 5 Figure 38: Main Activity Space ..................................................................................................... 3 5 Figure 39: Government Canyon Visitor Center Site Plan .............................................................. 3 6 Figure 40: Brazilian Peppers on a spoil pile ................................................................................. 3 9 Figure 41: Site Parti 1 .................................................................................................................... 4 0 Figure 42: Site Parti 2 ................................................................................................................... 4 0 Figure 43: Schematic Site Program Elements 1 ............................................................................ 4 1 Figure 44: Schematic Site Program Elements 2 ........................................................................... 4 2 Figure 45: Schematic Master Plan ................................................................................................ 4 3 Figure 46: Tern and chick .............................................................................................................. 4 7 Figure 47: Tern nest ........................................................................................................................ 4 7 ................................................................................................................. 4 8 Figure 49: Tern Ecological Section Sketch ................................................................................... 4 8 Figure 50: Osprey and chick on platform ...................................................................................... 4 9 Figure 51: Osprey scale relationship .............................................................................................. 4 9 Figure 52: Platform maintenance ................................................................................................... 5 0 Figure 53: Osprey Ecological Section Sketch ............................................................................... 5 0 Figure 54: Scheme 1 North facade ................................................................................................ 5 2 Figure 55: Scheme 1 West facade ................................................................................................. 5 2 Figure 56: Ecological succession sketch diagram ......................................................................... 5 2 Figure 57: Scheme 1 North facade ................................................................................................ 5 3 Figure 58: Scheme 1 West facade ................................................................................................. 5 3 Figure 59: Ecological succession sketch diagram ......................................................................... 5 3 Figure 60: Scheme 1 Birds Eye View ........................................................................................... 5 4 Figure 61: Abiotic expression sketch ............................................................................................ 5 4 Figure 62: Scheme 1 West facade ................................................................................................. 5 5 Figure 63: Scheme 1 Plan .............................................................................................................. 5 5 Figure 64: Scheme 1 Siting ........................................................................................................... 5 5 Figure 65: Scheme 2 West facade ................................................................................................. 5 6

PAGE 9

vi Figure 66: Scheme 2 Plan ............................................................................................................. 5 6 Figure 67: Scheme 2 Siting ........................................................................................................... 5 6 Figure 68: Scheme 3 West facade ................................................................................................. 5 7 Figure 69: Scheme 3 Plan ............................................................................................................. 5 7 Figure 70: Scheme 3 Siting ........................................................................................................... 5 7 Figure 71: Scheme 4 South facade ................................................................................................ 5 8 Figure 72: Scheme 4 North facade ................................................................................................ 5 8 Figure 73: Scheme 4 Birds Eye View showing tern nesting area on roof .................................... 5 8 Figure 74: Rattlesnake Key Ecology Map .................................................................................... 5 9 Figure 75: Rattlesnake Key Ecology Map .................................................................................... 5 9 Figure 76: Sunlight Sensitivity notes ............................................................................................ 6 0 Figure 77: Perspective of North facade, main gallery, and upper osprey viewing platform ........ 6 0 Figure 78: Cabins interior spaces expression ................................................................................ 6 1 Figure 79: South facade roof for rainwater collection to cistern .................................................. 6 1 Figure 80: Cabins Pair .................................................................................................................. 6 2 Figure 81: North Facade ................................................................................................................ 6 2 Figure 82: Cabins Pair .................................................................................................................. 6 3 Figure 83: North Facade ................................................................................................................ 6 3 Figure 84: Rattlesnake Key Ecology Map .................................................................................... 6 4 Figure 85: Master Plan Aerial Photograph ................................................................................... 6 5 Figure 86: Cabin Cluster Birds Eye View ..................................................................................... 6 6 Figure 87: Cabin Pair Rendering .................................................................................................. 6 7 Figure 88: North Facade ............................................................................................................... 6 7 Figure 89: Floor Plans and Cross Section ..................................................................................... 6 8 Figure 90: Ecological Cross Section ............................................................................................. 6 8 Figure 91: Least Tern roof colony ................................................................................................. 6 9 Figure 92: Structural Detail .......................................................................................................... 6 9 Figure 93: Approach/East facade .................................................................................................. 7 0 Figure 94: Cross Section, Plans, and Ecological Plan .................................................................. 7 1 Figure 95: Southwest Birds Eye View .......................................................................................... 7 2 Figure 96: Auditorium Deck ......................................................................................................... 7 2 Figure 97: Mangrove Viewing platform from Auditorium ........................................................... 7 3 Figure 98: Coastal Exhibition Room ............................................................................................ 7 3 Figure 99: Interior Courtyard ....................................................................................................... 7 4 Figure 100: Bat House Viewing Platform ..................................................................................... 7 4

PAGE 10

vii Figure 101: Auditorium and Dining Hall ....................................................................................... 7 5

PAGE 11

Ecological Coexistence A Sustainable Nature Retreat and Education Center on Rattlesnake Key, Terra Ceia, Florida Richard F. Peterika ABSTRACT Applied ecology has been used to design communities around the world; however suburban neighborhoods in west central Florida do not usually utilize existing or potential ecological function as a modeling parameter or success measure. Since the end of the great depression, developments in the Tampa Bay Area have displaced many wetland and upland natural communities. Private ownership and development of sensitive natural lands have restricted their use and hampered the functional longevity of important ecological systems in this area. These displaced areas have historically functioned as habitat for many types of animal life, have passively conveyed nutrient loads, and have facilitated the succession of organisms. They have also been used as recreational opportunities for local residents and visitors, children and adults. Applied ecological design usually occurs at a community or master plan scale, or separately at a singular building level, but rarely both simultaneously. This design proposal was the investigation and formation of an ecocentric architectural design methodology for coastal environments; from master plan to conceptual building design. The scope was the synthesis of a recreational tourism facility with the existing ecological communities of Rattlesnake Key, a barrier island in northwest Manatee County, Florida. The program included an ecological education center, where visitors could learn about their relationship with the ecological communities present on the island, and a group of cabins, where inhabitants could interact with each other and the surrounding natural communities intimately. Master planning strategies were outlined using extensive ecological mapping overlays, inviii Abstract

PAGE 12

systems were created by integrating biomimicry methods, habitat restoration techniques, and sustainable practices into a programmed, built environment. The results of the investigation were a series of physical models and graphic representations of spaces that manifest the sensitive relationship between human inhabitance and ecological function; where both processes coexist and support the longevity and persistence of one another through habitat creation. By analyzing the existing ecological functions present on a site, a designer could propose a typology that strengthens the relationship between man and his environment; where development is no longer displacement. ix

PAGE 13

16 Nature is a process and value, exhibiting both opportunities and limitations to human use. -Ian McHarg Site Analysis

PAGE 14

17 Rattlesnake Key, Florida was chosen as the main site early on in the thesis investigation, so the main function of the site analysis phase of research was to create a map of the different ecological communities present on the island. The researcher expected to use this map in a majority of the site planning and architectural decisions. In order to accomplish this task, the researcher needed to understand of how to interpret discrete biotic and abiotic factors present on the site. Biotic, meaning of or related to life, factors are living factors, including animals, fungi, and bacteria. Abiotic, meaning not alive, are non-living factors that affect living organisms. These factors include temperature, soil, and climate. Together, the two factors create a system, or ecosystem; a community of living and nonliving things considered as a unit (Online). In order to graphically represent these factors, the researcher collected applicable map and written data from online resources, textbooks, and life experience. Data Collection towards the creation of an ecology map of Rattlesnake Key. Five layers of biotic and abiotic information were compiled to create the ecology map: textual research, soils, observations. The main resource used in mapping and understanding what communities may exist on the island was the 26 Ecological Communities of Florida, a booklet assembled Ecology Mapping Above Five Layers of an Ecology Map (author graphic) Figure 15:

PAGE 15

18 booklet contains a chapter on each of the 26 ecological communities that exist in Florida. Each ecology is described in terms of soil types, vegetation and animals that are found in the community, and environmental value as a natural system. The slope, drainage capability, and texture of soils dictate how nutrients are made available to plants and animals, so certain soils can be used as an indicator for an appropriate community type. Knowledge of what plants and animals that exist in an red mangroves, serve as clues that this area may be one ecology type, as opposed to another. Sabal palms may grow near the coast, in a certain ecological community, so if they appear to delineate a border on an aerial, that maybe the boundary between two communities. Environmental value not be suitable for raising cattle, but may be very valuable for recreational use and even more valuable for wildlife use. Above Rattlesnake Key Ecology Map (author graphic) Figure 16:

PAGE 16

Soil surveys for each Florida County where compiled by the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service and are available free online. Each survey lists all of the soil types that exist within a certain county, the physical characteristics of each type, and maps the general locations of all of the different types. Topography for the site was found on Microsoft Terraserv-USA, an online mapping resource. Aerial photography was gathered from Google Earth and from the Manatee County Soil Survey. The soil survey uses a much older aerial photograph from modern aerial, 40+ years of site change can be imagined. conducted to verify information gather from the other layers, document points of premium value (environmental or land use), and to experience the architectural nature of each ecology type. Above Soil Types (author graphic) Figure 17: Below Figure 18:

PAGE 17

20 Processes as Values Once the ecology map had been created, further site studies could be conducted through overlay analysis. This technique is clearly described in Ian McHargs book Design with Nature. He originally mapped distinct ecological processes, historical features, geologic features, slope, habitat, and tidal inundation among many other factors. These factors were mapped in tones of gray from most to least, or reversed when necessary, and printed on transparencies. A group of relevant factors for each prospective land use, such as scenic value (land) or active recreation suitability, was assembled and then photographed. The resulting image was a value gradient that incorporated all of the necessary factors. Processes, reconstituted as values, indicated the areas intrinsically different development area options, and then narrow down the three options to one focus area. This area became the main region studied for the remainder of the thesis investigation. The researcher simple translation to a monochromatic map. Overlay Analysis WindsWetland Sensitive: 50+ years 8+ Low Vulnerable Upland Adaptable: 20-50 years 0-8 Medium Unlikely Unknown No Shade HighSolar Path Topography Soils Water Coverage Water Depth Current Aerial Narrative Research Field Observations Existing Zoning Future Land Use FEMA Flood Zone Mosquito DitchesABIOTIC COMPONENTSnon-living chemical and physical factors in the environment.PLANNING COMPONENTSGOVERNMENT-IMPOSED FORCES THAT AFFECT THE USE OF A SITEBIOTIC COMPONENTSliving things that shape an ecosystemOTHER RESEARCHwetlands comfort access boat circulation pedestrian circulationWhere will I be comfortable? How can I get to the island? Where can I go by boat? Where can I walk? Where can I propose diversity? disturbed landsLocation and Extent of wetland areas onsiteSensitivityAbility of existing vegetation to fully regenerate after disturbanceShadeHeight of potential Canopy level shadeInvasivesCurrent potential for invasive specie intrusionDensityPhysical density of vegetation Above Processes and Components (author graphic) Figure 19:

PAGE 18

21 The overlay analysis phase of research stage mapped ecological conditions by using different combinations of the biotic and abiotic factors gathered previously with the ecology map. Planning elevation, existing zoning, and future land use were also included in this stage. The ecological conditions mapped were: Vegetative Density, Wetlands and Uplands, Invasive Species Potential, Sensitivity and Shade. The researcher felt each of these conditions were important to chart because he expected that they would translate directly into development feasibility. Vegetative communities are more supportive of inhabitation and circulation, but are also more rare on the island, so preservation is a concern. Wetlands require more effort and resources to inhabit, but some of the wetland communities on the island are abundant. Invasive Species Potential shows ecological communities that have a high probability of containing invasive plant types. If so, human development could displace this invasive community and begin to help return the island to its original ecological state. Sensitivity outlines the ability for a certain community to heal itself if displaced or impacted. A mangrove fringe can heal very quickly because of a readily available nearly as fast, because it is so dependent on extreme high tides and millimeters of water. Shade shows where a good percentage of the trees in a certain community create a comfortable, shady canopy. extract another iteration of analysis. This stage marked the point where the ecological conditions Above Stage One (author graphic) Figure 20: WindsWetland Sensitive: 50+ years 8+ Low Vulnerable Upland Adaptable: 20-50 years 0-8 Medium Unlikely Unknown No Shade HighSolar Path Topography Soils Water Coverage Water Depth Current Aerial Narrative Research Field Observations Existing Zoning Future Land Use FEMA Flood Zone Mosquito DitchesABIOTIC COMPONENTSnon-living chemical and physical factors in the environment.PLANNING COMPONENTSGOVERNMENT-IMPOSED FORCES THAT AFFECT THE USE OF A SITEBIOTIC COMPONENTSliving things that shape an ecosystemOTHER RESEARCHwetlands comfort access boat circulation pedestrian circulationWhere will I be comfortable? How can I get to the island? Where can I go by boat? Where can I walk? Where can I propose diversity? disturbed landsLocation and Extent of wetland areas onsiteSensitivityAbility of existing vegetation to fully regenerate after disturbanceShadeHeight of potential Canopy level shadeInvasivesCurrent potential for invasive specie intrusionDensityPhysical density of vegetation

PAGE 19

22 and characteristics were valued in terms of recreational use and development. These land use conditions were: Comfort, Access, Boat Circulation, Pedestrian Circulation, and Disturbed Lands. The researcher choose these land use categories were chosen because they embodied the essential requirements for remote development. What land can I walk on? What areas are accessible by boat? By kayak? What areas should remain in preservation? nature of the site became somewhat overwhelming. The researcher had to trailblaze through thick vegetation and muddy used to its fullest potential. The research also acquired a sense smells even began to give clues towards ecological community recognition. Above Stage Two (author graphic) Figure 21: WindsWetland Sensitive: 50+ years 8+ Low Vulnerable Upland Adaptable: 20-50 years 0-8 Medium Unlikely Unknown No Shade HighSolar Path Topography Soils Water Coverage Water Depth Current Aerial Narrative Research Field Observations Existing Zoning Future Land Use FEMA Flood Zone Mosquito DitchesABIOTIC COMPONENTSnon-living chemical and physical factors in the environment.PLANNING COMPONENTSGOVERNMENT-IMPOSED FORCES THAT AFFECT THE USE OF A SITEBIOTIC COMPONENTSliving things that shape an ecosystemOTHER RESEARCHwetlands comfort access boat circulation pedestrian circulationWhere will I be comfortable? How can I get to the island? Where can I go by boat? Where can I walk? Where can I propose diversity? disturbed landsLocation and Extent of wetland areas onsiteSensitivityAbility of existing vegetation to fully regenerate after disturbanceShadeHeight of potential Canopy level shadeInvasivesCurrent potential for invasive specie intrusionDensityPhysical density of vegetation

PAGE 20

23 Once the second stage of overlay analysis was completed the researcher had enough information to choose three development sites on the island. All of the sites were located on the west coast of the island, due to proximity of upland communities and to the waters and prevailing the west coast. The ecological communities on this coast also had a high shade potential, a physical comfort value, as opposed to the interior of the island, which had a low shade potential and was The researcher also used the compiled data to begin to analyze the ecological conditions in section. The researcher created a cross-sectional drawing showing the sectional qualities of a coastal system. Information from the two stages of analysis were then overlain onto the section drawing. Above Figure 22: Center Below Vegetative Density sketch (author graphic) Figure 23: Breeze intensity sketch (author graphic) Figure 24:

PAGE 21

24 Site Selection The three sites chosen were essentially the northern and southern tips of the west coast of the island, and the center of the coast. The researcher named the sites Eds Key Pass, Terra Ceia Point, and Rock Point, respectively. Eds Key Pass, also called Little Miguel Pass, was on the northern located between Rattlesnake Key and Eds Key, a much smaller barrier island. Rock Point was at the center of the west coastline at the mouth of Critical Creek, a small creek that went through to Critical Bayou on the east side of the island. Terra Ceia Point, the most southern point of the island, was almost a separate island itself, separated from the main island by two creek crossings. Terra Ceia Point was ultimately chosen as the focus area for the remainder of the thesis investigation due to its proximity to Terra Ceia Bay. Ferry access was envisioned to be available from Snead Island to the south.

PAGE 22

Full Sun Partial Shade Mostly Shade Full Shade Obstructed Breezes Medium Breezes Light Breezes No Air CirculationWetlands Sun Angle Orientation Ecological Shade Maximize Sunlight to the EarthWhile Humans require a high degree of Shelter from the sun, Coastal Ecologies rely on the Sun for Photosynthesis, Transpiration, and Evaporation. A Balance of Sunlight to Shade can be achieved by decreasing the Solar Footprint of proposed structures and by Increasing the usability of existing Natural Spaces that shall be preserved. Ecological Architecture should be Analyzed in the Following Ways: Potential Light Barriers Disintegration of Mass Enlarged Ecology Map Sensitivity Shade Sunlight Wind Ecological Section Invasives Full Sun Partial Shade Mostly Shade Full Shade Obstructed Breezes Medium Breezes Light Breezes No Air CirculationWetlands Sun Angle Orientation Ecological Shade Maximize Sunlight to the EarthWhile Humans require a high degree of Shelter from the sun, Coastal Ecologies rely on the Sun for Photosynthesis, Transpiration, and Evaporation. A Balance of Sunlight to Shade can be achieved by decreasing the Solar Footprint of proposed structures and by Increasing the usability of existing Natural Spaces that shall be preserved. Ecological Architecture should be Analyzed in the Following Ways: Potential Light Barriers Disintegration of Mass Enlarged Ecology Map Sensitivity Shade Sunlight Wind Ecological Section Invasives

PAGE 23

26

PAGE 24

27 Ten Green Projects were used as case studies on the architectural expression of sustainable practices. The projects were the Government Canyon Visitor Center in Helotes, Texas, the World Birding Center Headquarters in Mission, Texas, both designed by Lake|Flato Architects, and the Pocono Environmental Education Center, designed by Bohlin Cywinski Jackson. All three projects won which have been included in Appendix *****. These reports provided critical site, design, and performance data on each project, as well as architectural drawings, photographs, and diagrams. Each study was essentially a reconstruction of each building in the form of a schematic Sketchup model. The models were created using the scaled architectural graphics and photographs that each projects report included. The plans, sections, and elevations of each building were transposed into AutoCAD 2007 linework and were then imported into Google Sketchup 6 for schematic modeling. Photographs were used as visual references of form, void, and intent. Once the schematic volume was created, topography and site plan information was added in the form of a graphic overlay, if available. A representative birds-eye view of each model was then exported to Adobe Photoshop. This program was used to create a series of rendered diagrams described different relationships between sustainable systems and architectural form. None of the graphic diagram studies revealed any empirical data, but the reports provided precedent for program element sizing parameters and plan relationships. Precedence Studies

PAGE 25

28 Architect: Lake|Flato Architects See Appendix 1 for AIA Overview Water Conveyance 100% of the roof stormwater runoff is conveyed or collected by the large metal roofs of The Government Canyon Visitors Center. The researcher decided that this building utilized two different formal strategies to relate water conveyance to the built form: carving and folding. The shed-like roofs on either of the two wings, were obliquely carved to create a biased gutter. This carving also formed the programmed spaces beneath either roof, which created two semitriangular volumes. The main exterior exhibition hall was enclosed by a roof that seemed to fold, as opposed to carve. Water was directed by the angled meeting of two planes, or by the edge of one plane. Government Canyon Visitor Center Above Schematic Model of the Government Canyon Visitor Center (author graphic) Figure 25:

PAGE 26

Rainwater was collected from the roofs and stored in partially exposed, underground concrete cisterns, located. A solar-powered pump then lifts the stored groundwater to a storagefrom the ground, similar to the artesian springs found in this area. The exposed concrete cisterns became the visual terminus of the three building forms, and were located adjacent to the main entry of the facility. This helped to recognize the sustainable functions that the building is emulating. The structures and walks were also raised slightly to allow building, as well as cooling breezes. Exterior and Interior More than half of the facility consists of roofed, exterior spaces. 3,228 sq. ft of porch space also doubles as Above Water Conveyance Diagram (author graphic) Figure 26: Below Cisterns (Source: AIA/COTE, Photo Credit: Chris Cooper) Figure 27:

PAGE 27

30 exhibit space is only a screened room. Large, movable wall panels help the main exhibit space adapt to the harsh Texas climate. Supplemental Information The siting and orientation of the buildings was parallel with the edge of the Balcones Escarpment fault line, which delineates the edge between preserved and developed areas. The building became a physical marker, materializing a natural edge that would have otherwise been invisible to a casual site visitor. Above Exterior Space Diagram (author graphic) Figure 28: Below Interior Space Diagram (author graphic) Figure 29:

PAGE 28

31 Architect: Lake|Flato Architects Completion: January 2004 See Appendix 2 for AIA Overview Water Conservation and Use Though interior space was minimized to save material and energy, metal roof was maximized over exterior walkways and porches to collect as much water as possible. Sectionally, the roof was semicircular channel that directed water to either side, equally. Since the site was located in a historic river-delta habitat, no hierarchy was put on the expression of rainwater conveyance; was prevented by levee construction, now had to be mitigated with roof runoff. The location of rainwater storage system seemed to be related to scale of the wildlife garden created between and around the facility structures. Since the rainwater was used to create wetland ecology over the entire site, water needed to be available anywhere on the site. The rainwater was World Birding Center Headquarters Above Schematic Model of the World Birding Center Headquarters (author graphic) Figure 30:

PAGE 29

32 also used for rainwater guzzlers, natural pools, and water seeps, which were designed to meet the Architects, The). Exterior and Interior Space The large structural facilities program spaces, whether interior or exterior. Most of the circulation paths are exterior spaces. The long, thin plan scheme also keeps users in close proximity with the landscape restoration gardens located throughout the entire site. Covered walkways between each building bar keep users comfortable as they experience the different habitat creation strategies made available through stringent native plantings and wildlife water features. Above Water Consumption and Use Diagram (author graphic) Figure 31: Below Birders Cafe (Source: AIA/COTE, Photo Credit: Hester + Hardaway, Paul Hester) Figure 32:

PAGE 30

33 Supplemental Information The facility is located in the Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park, and is a migratory bird species. The facility also incorporated a twostory observation tower and bird blinds to provide unique opportunities for visitors to view valley specialties, birds known to exist nowhere else in the United States. Below Above Exterior Space Diagram (author graphic) Figure 33: Interior Space Diagram (author graphic) Figure 34:

PAGE 31

34 Architect: Bohlin Cywinski Jackson See Appendix 3 for AIA Overview Adaptability The main activity space located on the south side of the building serves both as a sustainable feature and as the most important program space in the facility. The orientation and angle of the roof provide for passive solar heating in the winter, embodied in a grand scale that supports the multi-functional use of the activity space. The roof of this space was made large enough to provide during the warmer months; the busiest time of year for the facility. Supplemental Information The facility was located on previously cleared land, which existed in a forest of oaks, Pocono Environmental Education Center Above Schematic Model of the Pocono Environmental Education Center (author graphic) Figure 35:

PAGE 32

conifers, and a well-developed understory. This location minimized site disturbance, which became an important consideration in the site analysis in Rattlesnake Key. Center Below Interior Space Diagram (author graphic) Figure 36: Main Activity Space (Source: AIA/COTE, Photo Credit: Nic Lehoux) Figure 38: Above Exterior Space Diagram (author graphic) Figure 37:

PAGE 33

36 The researcher intended to conduct an ecological mapping study on each of the sites, similar to the method used in the site analysis of Rattlesnake Key. Unfortunately, the same information even casual analysis. The researcher also realized that if the information were able, an entirely new set of ecological systems would have needed to be researched and understood. Rattlesnake Key consisted of four different Floridian ecologies, and further research into these three case studies have required comprehension of Texas and Pennsylvanian ecological systems. The scope of this analysis went beyond the intents of the envisioned study. Also, the scale of ecological mapping does not lend itself well to sites that exist primarily in one ecological system. Although many sustainable elements can be incorporated into the architectural design of a building, some elements are too sensitive to be included. The intent of these buildings was to provide recreational and education opportunities to visitors, while supporting or enhancing the natural ecological processes that can or do exist on the site. These processes can sometimes include human intervention, but in some cases, humans are best kept at a safe distance from certain preserved must be halted, because the hydrologic conditions of the site are necessary to all inhabitants of the region, man and beast, and they must be preserved. The migratory birds that can be viewed at the World Birding Center do not necessarily want to be viewed, so to these birds, our presence must If humans were able to view these birds at a distance that a zoo may provide, then focus of the facility shifts from Conclusions Above Government Canyon Visitor Center Site Plan (Source: AIA/COTE) Figure 39:

PAGE 34

37 habitat creation or migration corridor support, to exhibition. This would most likely displace the birds that the facility was designed to exhibit. Further architectural design in sensitive ecological systems should maintain a high degree of sustainable practice implementation and it must also provide preservation areas to protect the sensitive communities that the facility visitors intend to experience.

PAGE 35

38 Program Analysis

PAGE 36

The goal of this thesis is to create a facility that restores and enhances the existing ecological function of Rattlesnake Key through human involvement. County proposed a mosquito ditching effort on many barrier islands and wetland areas in the region. Appendix 4 shows a letter describing the actual work effort. In a telephone discussion with Mark Latham, Director of the Manatee County Mosquito Control District, the researcher learned a system that breeds mosquito larvae: standing pools of water. It was assumed that if the mosquitoes, the main transmitter of malaria, and the mosquito larvae population was reduced, the spread of malaria would be controlled. In order to do this, a series of channels or ditches were dug in wetland during high tides. As the ditches were being dug, the dredged earth was deposited on either side of the ditch, creating series of approximately 4 mounds, called spoil piles, on either side of the ditch. When maintained properly, the mosquito ditches are very successful at mosquito abatement. Unfortunately, no maintenance has occurred on Rattlesnake Key since the ditches were originally dug. The ditches that used to convey stagnant, due to colonizing mangrove communities. The Master Plan Above Brazilian Peppers on a spoil pile (author photograph) Figure 40:

PAGE 37

40 ditches that once served to assist in controlling mosquito populations now have become mosquito brooding habitats themselves. Also, the spoil piles on either side of the ditches have become hosts to invasive species, such as Brazilian pepper, which displace the natural upland plants on the island. Schematic Master Plan The researcher did not consider this island to be a pristine wetland system, which might require protection from any and all human intervention, due to the mosquito ditches present onsite. Human involvement on Rattlesnake Key could assist in mosquito ditch maintenance and conversion, creating kayak trails in the ditches or trails on the spoil piles. From these initial ideas, the researcher brainstormed on what uses could exist on the island. These uses needed to offer some degree of ecological restoration or enhancement, along with some degree of human use and enjoyment. Restoration could be achieved by returning an impacted area to its natural replanting with appropriate wetland plants. Enhancement could be achieved by creating more biodiversity in an impacted system, by leaving ditches in place, removing invasive species, creating trails Above Site Parti 1 (author graphic) Figure 41: Below Site Parti 2 (author graphic) Figure 42:

PAGE 38

41 and replanting with associated upland plants. These enhanced areas would not be natural, they are essentially man-made, but they would operate in a natural way. Ecological function soil structure, hydrology, air quality, and a number of factors, but not necessarily The researcher assumed that if similar ecological conditions could be mimicked elsewhere on the island, then a man-made ecosystem could exist there. The concept of enhancement became a main focus in program analysis for the facility and master plan of Terra Ceia Point. Through quick studies of similar preserves such as Everglades National Park and Brooker Creek Nature Preserve, the researcher chose the following elements as necessary program items: kayak trails, mangrove chickees, nature trails, a trail outpost, an on observation tower, a passive education center, cabins, a ranger station and a scenic shoreline trail. Two parti studies were created to diagram how these program elements Above Schematic Site Program Elements 1 (author graphic) Figure 43: Eco-Cabin ClustersEach Cluster consists of: 3 to 4 Cabins 1 Group Overlook Pavilion 1 Restroom and Shower Facility Each Cabin is approx. 300-500 Sq. FT Beach PavilionAn Outdoor Sheltered Picnic Area Located Throughout the Bay and Interior Coastline Each Pavilion is Approx. 350 Sq. FT Observation TowerProvide Long, Elevated view of the Entire Island and Surrounding Context Approx. 900 Sq. FTMangrove ChickeesA Kayak-Friendly Coastal Camping Perch Located Throughout the Bay and Interior Coastline Tent Area, Kayak storage, and Green Restroom Facility Each Chickee is Approx. 100 Sq. FT Ecological Education CenterProvides Educational Opportunity for Visitors Group Meeting and Dining Area for Cabin Renters Bird-Watching Posts Gift Shop The Center consists of 3 Bars with 1 Axial Connection Each Bar is Approx. 3,000 Sq. FT 9,000 Sq. FT Total Maintenance YardStorage and Maintenance Area for Island Services Services can include: Mosquito Ditch CLearing/Dredging Invasive Species Removal and Disposal Island PavilionArtistic Example of Ecological Architecture Potential The Pavilion will be partially submerged during High Tide Concept: Express how Ecological Architecture can create Functioning Ecologies through Supportive Design Imagine: in 50+ years, a new island is created Ranger StationGateway Point for most Users Facility can consist of: Short-Stay Ranger Quarters Ranger Office Medical Office Kayak and Pontoon Boat Rental Cabin Reservations Pavilion Reservations Chickee Reservations The Station is 2 Story Approx. 2,500 Sq. FT

PAGE 39

42 interfaced with the island itself as well as the surrounding and penetrating water bodies. Conceptual Master Plan Once the topography map, ecological map, and the two stages of site analysis were factored into the schematic master plan, a second iteration of the plan was created. Revisions to the program elements included the concept of cabin clusters, beach pavilions, the ecological education center, and island pavilion, mangrove chickees, the observation tower, a maintenance yard, and a ranger station. The cabin clusters included a set of three to four cabins, a restroom and shower facility, a group meeting and dining area, and all necessary boardwalks to structures. Eco-Cabin ClustersEach Cluster consists of: 3 to 4 Cabins 1 Group Overlook Pavilion 1 Restroom and Shower Facility Each Cabin is approx. 300-500 Sq. FT Beach PavilionAn Outdoor Sheltered Picnic Area Located Throughout the Bay and Interior Coastline Each Pavilion is Approx. 350 Sq. FT Observation TowerProvide Long, Elevated view of the Entire Island and Surrounding Context Approx. 900 Sq. FTMangrove ChickeesA Kayak-Friendly Coastal Camping Perch Located Throughout the Bay and Interior Coastline Tent Area, Kayak storage, and Green Restroom Facility Each Chickee is Approx. 100 Sq. FT Ecological Education CenterProvides Educational Opportunity for Visitors Group Meeting and Dining Area for Cabin Renters Bird-Watching Posts Gift Shop The Center consists of 3 Bars with 1 Axial Connection Each Bar is Approx. 3,000 Sq. FT 9,000 Sq. FT Total Maintenance YardStorage and Maintenance Area for Island Services Services can include: Mosquito Ditch CLearing/Dredging Invasive Species Removal and Disposal Island PavilionArtistic Example of Ecological Architecture Potential The Pavilion will be partially submerged during High Tide Concept: Express how Ecological Architecture can create Functioning Ecologies through Supportive Design Imagine: in 50+ years, a new island is created Ranger StationGateway Point for most Users Facility can consist of: Short-Stay Ranger Quarters Ranger Office Medical Office Kayak and Pontoon Boat Rental Cabin Reservations Pavilion Reservations Chickee Reservations The Station is 2 Story Approx. 2,500 Sq. FT Above Schematic Site Program Elements 2 (author graphic) Figure 44:

PAGE 40

43 Above Schematic Master Plan (author graphic) Figure 45:

PAGE 41

44 Building Program Analysis Keeping the theory of reuse in mind, the researcher used the three precedence studies, Government Canyon Visitor Center, World Birding Center Headquarters, and Pocono Environmental Education Center to extract program sizes and relationships. Each precedent study was broken down into groups of interior and exterior spaces. for occupant use was also shown. The comparisons between the different studies were then compiled and evaluated with a separate data group. The employee was calculated, as well as exhibition space per visitor. Information gather from this tabled, as well as information provided over the telephone from administrators at Caladesi Island Nature Preserve (Dunedin, Florida) allowed the researcher to create a table of prospective program elements and sizes. Education Center and Cabin Cluster Program Element Area (sf) Percentage Exhibition 4,900 38% Office 2,100 16% Caf 800 6% Classrooms 1,800 14% Bookstore 1,200 9% EventsCourt 13,900 Ebony Arbor Garden 8,100 Flooded Habitat Garden 14,300 ElectricTram Drop of f 1,200 Employees 15 Hours per employee 40 Visitors 185 Hours per visito r 2 ExteriorSF 37,500 ExteriorSF/Total SF 288% OfficeSpace/Employee (sf) 140 Exhibition Space/Visito r 26 Element Area (sf) Percentage Exhibition 0 0% Office 725 17% Caf 0 0% Classrooms 820 19% GiftShop 280 7% Exhibition 1,620 Outdoor Classroom 920 EntryTerrace 700 (2)Small Terraces 700 Employees 6 Hours per employee 40 Visitors 1,173 Hours per visito r 2 ExteriorSF 3,940 ExteriorSF/Total SF 93% OfficeSpace/Employee (sf) 121 Exhibition Space/Visito r 1 Element Area (sf) Percentage ActivityHall 3,680 47% Office 490 6% Kitchen/Prep 1,850 24% Classrooms 0 0% GiftShop 0 0% (2)Porch 1,980 Employees 8 Hours per employee 35 Visitors 250 Hours per visito r 2 ExteriorSF 1,980 ExteriorSF/Total SF 26% OfficeSpace/Employee (sf) 61 Exhibition Space/Visito r 15Interior Exterior Occupants Compare Interior Exterior Occupants Compare Compare Interior Exterior Occupants Above Program sizes and relationships Table 1:

PAGE 42

Element Area (sf) Bedroom 150 Bedroom 150 Lavatory 25 Sitting Area 150 Porch 100 Stoop 25 Men'sWC 25 Men'sUrinal 25Cabin House 2Women'sWC 100 4Showers 200 Golf CartParking 400 Gateway 25 Kitchenette 100 FireCircle 25 Living Area 100 Bath H Pavilion Living Area 100 Element Area (sf) Exhibition/Dining 3,000 Office 900 Kitchen 1,200 Interior Osprey Platform 600 BatObservation Deck 500 Outdoor Classroom 1,000 Stairs/Hoist 1,000 Cisterns 14,300Exterior Above Program Elements Table 2:

PAGE 43

46

PAGE 44

47 Above Tern and chick (Source: Online) Figure 46: Below Tern nest (Source: Online) Figure 47:

PAGE 45

Above Figure 48: Below Tern Ecological Section Sketch (author graphic) Figure 49:

PAGE 46

Above Osprey and chick on platform (Source: Online) Figure 50: Below Osprey scale relationship (Source: Online) Figure 51:

PAGE 47

Above Figure 52: Below Osprey Ecological Section Sketch (author graphic) Figure 53:

PAGE 49

Above Scheme 1 North facade (author photograph) Figure 54: Below Scheme 1 West facade (author photograph) Figure 55: Ecological succession sketch diagram (author photograph) Figure 56: Structure Acting as a Wave Action Baffle (Land Preservation/Creation) Integrated Metal Grid Cross-Bracing (In Combination with Cabling) Ecologies Expressed through Structure/Skin Transparent Floor and Corner Modeling Concepts Full Sun Partial Shade Mostly Shade Full Shade Obstructed Breezes Medium Breezes Light Breezes No Air CirculationSunlight Wind Ecological Section

PAGE 50

Above Scheme 1 North facade (author photograph) Figure 57: Below Scheme 1 West facade (author photograph) Figure 58: Ecological succession sketch diagram (author photograph) Figure 59:

PAGE 51

Above Scheme 1 Birds Eye View (author photograph) Figure 60: Abiotic expression sketch (author graphic) Figure 61:

PAGE 52

Above Scheme 1 West facade (author photograph) Figure 62: Below Figure 63: Scheme 1 Siting (author photograph) Figure 64:

PAGE 53

Above Scheme 2 West facade (author photograph) Figure 65: Below Figure 66: Scheme 2 Siting (author photograph) Figure 67:

PAGE 54

Above Scheme 3 West facade (author photograph) Figure 68: Below Figure 69: Scheme 3 Siting (author photograph) Figure 70:

PAGE 55

Above Scheme 4 South facade (author photograph) Figure 71: Below Scheme 4 North facade (author photograph) Figure 72: Scheme 4 Birds Eye View showing tern nesting area on roof (author photograph) Figure 73:

PAGE 56

Above Below Figure 74: Figure 75:

PAGE 57

Sun Angle Orientation Ecological Shade Maximize Sunlight to the EarthWhile Humans require a high degree of Shelter from the sun, Coastal Ecologies rely on the Sun for Photosynthesis, Transpiration, and Evaporation. A Balance of Sunlight to Shade can be achieved by decreasing the Solar Footprint of proposed structures and by Increasing the usability of existing Natural Spaces that shall be preserved. Ecological Architecture should be Analyzed in the Following Ways: Potential Light Barriers Disintegration of Mass Above Sunlight Sensitivity notes (author photograph) Figure 76: Figure 77:

PAGE 58

Above Figure 78: Below South facade roof for rainwater collection to cistern (author photograph) Figure 79:

PAGE 59

Above Figure 80: Below North Facade (author photograph) Figure 81:

PAGE 60

Above Figure 82: Below North Facade (author photograph) Figure 83:

PAGE 61

64 Above Figure 84:

PAGE 62

Above Figure 85:

PAGE 63

66 Above Figure 86:

PAGE 64

67 Above Figure 87: Below North Facade (author photograph) Figure 88:

PAGE 65

Above Figure 89: Below Figure 90:

PAGE 66

Above Least Tern roof colony (author photograph) Figure 91: Below Structural Detail (author photograph) Figure 92:

PAGE 67

Above Approach/East facade (author photograph) Figure 93:

PAGE 68

Above Figure 94:

PAGE 69

Above Southwest Birds Eye View (author photograph) Figure 95: Below Auditorium Deck (author photograph) Figure 96:

PAGE 70

Above Figure 97: Below Figure 98:

PAGE 71

74 Above Figure 99: Below Figure 100:

PAGE 72

Above Auditorium and Dining Hall (author photograph) Figure 101:

PAGE 73

76 American Institute of Architects, The. Government Canyon Visitor Center. 23 April 2007. Top Ten Green Projects. 1 September 2008 . . Pocono Environmental Education and Visitor Center. 22 April 2008. Top Ten Green Projects. 11 August 2008 . . World Birding Center Headquarters. 20 April 2006. Top Ten Green Architects. 1 September 2008 . Atlantic Center for the Arts: Resource Center for Artists. Insite (1994). Chesapeake Bay Program. Osprey-Bay Field Guide. 19 November 2008 . Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Wildlife Division. Osprey. Wildlife in Connecticut Informational Series. 8 September 2008
PAGE 74

77 . Online, Biology. Abiotic and Biotic Factors. 01 November 2008 . Osprey Restoration Project: Pictorial Instructions for Erecting an Osprey Platform. Citizens United to Protect the Maurice River and Its Tributaries, Inc., n.d. Schafer, Joe. Terns of Florida. University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Site Map. Atlantic Center for the Arts, New Smyrna. Sustainable Sites Initative. Standards & Guidelines. Preliminary Report. 2007. Talarico, Wendy. Graphic Standards Details. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005. Texas Parks and Wildlife. Interior Least Tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos). 11 April 2007. 8 September 2008 . Twenty-Six Ecological Communities of Florida. Gainesville: Soail and Water Conservation Society, 1989. Wharton, C. H. et al. Forested Wetlands of Florida their Management & Use. Gainesville, 1977.

PAGE 75

78 American Institute of Architects, The. Government Canyon Visitor Center. 23 April 2007. Top Ten Green Projects. 1 September 2008 . . Pocono Environmental Education and Visitor Center. 22 April 2008. Top Ten Green Projects. 11 August 2008 . . World Birding Center Headquarters. 20 April 2006. Top Ten Green Architects. 1 September 2008 . Atlantic Center for the Arts: Resource Center for Artists. Insite (1994). Chesapeake Bay Program. Osprey-Bay Field Guide. 19 November 2008 . Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Wildlife Division. Osprey. Wildlife in Connecticut Informational Series. 8 September 2008
PAGE 76

79 Hudson, Robert. An Environmental Education Center for Caladesi Island. Tampa, 19 May 2002. Kemp, Robert L. Project No. 4 McGill Island. Proposed for Construction during Fiscal Year 1958-59. Manatee County Anti-Mosquito District, 30 June 1958. Klepper, E. Dan. Guzzlers. Texas Parks & Wildlife magazine (2003). McHarg, Ian L. Design with Nature. Garden City: Doubleday/Natural History Press, 1969. Miller, William. Atlantic Center for the Arts Richard F. Peterika. 9 August 2008. Miller, William. Masters Residence Construction Documents. Atlantic Center for the Arts, New Smyrna. Nasa Kennedy Space Center. Working on Roofs (Least terns and Black Skimmers). KSC Environmental Program Branch Natural Resources. 8 September 2008 . Online, Biology. Abiotic and Biotic Factors. 01 November 2008 . Osprey Restoration Project: Pictorial Instructions for Erecting an Osprey Platform. Citizens United to Protect the Maurice River and Its Tributaries, Inc., n.d. Reef Ball Styles. 5 September 2008 . Schafer, Joe. Terns of Florida. University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Site Map. Atlantic Center for the Arts, New Smyrna. Sustainable Sites Initative. Standards & Guidelines. Preliminary Report. 2007. Talarico, Wendy. Graphic Standards Details. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005.

PAGE 77

80 Texas Parks and Wildlife. Interior Least Tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos). 11 April 2007. 8 September 2008 . Topham, Sean. Move House. New York: Prestel, 2004. Twenty-Six Ecological Communities of Florida. Gainesville: Soail and Water Conservation Society, 1989. Van Der Ryn, Sim. Ecological Design. Washington: Island Press, 1996. Watts, Andrew. Modern Construction Facades. New York: SpringerWien New York, 2005. Wharton, C. H. et al. Forested Wetlands of Florida their Management & Use. Gainesville, 1977. Wolfe, Ralph, Evelyn Loveday and Doug Merrilees. Low-Cost Pole Building Construction: The Complete How-To Book. Pownal: Storey Communications, Inc., 1980.

PAGE 78

81AIA/COTE Report Overview for the Government Canyon Visitor Center Appendix 1

PAGE 79

Architects & the Public Practice of Architecture Knowledge Communities Emerging Professionals Photo credit: Chris Cooper About Us | Advocacy | Awards | Career Center | Contract Documents | Education | Events | Find an Architect | Press/News | Store Overview Process Finance Land Use Site and Water Energy Materials Indoor Environment Images Ratings and Awards Lessons Learn More Home | Help Government Canyon Visitor CenterOverview Location: Helotes, TX Building type(s): Interpretive Center New construction 4,240 sq. feet (394 sq. meters) Project scope: a single building Rural setting Completed October 2005 Government Canyon Visitor Center forms the gateway to the 8,600-acre Government Canyon State Natural Area. It includes an exhibit hall, a park store, classrooms, offices, and an outdoor pavilion. Government Canyon lies along the Balcones Escarpment on the recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer, the sole source of drinking water for the city of San Antonio, in an area under immense development pressure. The goal of the project, a karst aquifer preserve, was to protect and restore the natural landscape while creating high-use, low-maintenance, and economical structures that reinforce the mission of the Natural Area. This project was chosen as an AIA Committee on the Environment Top Ten Green Project for 2007. It was submitted by Lake|Flato Architects, in San Antonio, Texas. Additional project team members are listed on the "Process" screen. Environmental Aspects The design team aimed to minimize impacts on the landscape and fragile water resources and to do more with less. The development was concentrated to reduce landscape water usage and physical impact on the site. Extraneous space was eliminated, reducing material use, energy use, first cost, operations cost, and maintenance needs. Exhibit and circulation spaces, originally programmed as indoor spaces, were designed as sheltered and shaded outdoor spaces, accepting summer breezes but protected from north winds. These spaces are not air-conditioned, reducing conditioned space by 35% and further reducing material and energy costs. Rainwater collected from the project roof is filtered and used for both landscape irrigation and wastewater conveyance. The gravity-flow water system is coupled with solar-powered water pumps. All stormwater runoff from parking lots is distributed through vegetated filter strips and retained on site. The structures make extensive use of local and regional materials while evoking the historic uses of the former ranch site. The main exhibit space was built using materials and technologies traditionally used by ranchers in cattle pens and fencing, while the stone walls echo the historic stone fences found on the site. Owner & Occupancy Owned and occupied by Texas Parks and Wildlife, State government Typically occupied by 6 people, 40 hours per person per week; and 1,173 visitors per week, 2 hours per visitor per week The American Institute of Architects :: Top Ten Green Projects http://www.aiatopten.org/hpb/overview.cfm?ProjectID=796 1 of 2 9/1/2008 4:48 P M 82

PAGE 80

Keywords Open space preservation, Stormwater management Water harvesting, Efficient fixtures and appliances Efficient irrigation Drought-tolerant landscaping, Massing and orientation, Glazing Lighting control and daylight harvesting Efficient lighting Adaptable design, Recycled materials, Local materials, Certified wood, Connection to outdoors, Daylighting Natural ventilation, Thermal comfort next topic: Process Last updated: 4/23/2007 Our thanks to the ENERGY STAR program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and to the U.S. Department of Energy and to BuildingGreen, Inc. for hosting the submission and judging forms. For more information about the AIA/COTE Top Ten Green Projects, contact AIA/COTE For help on how to use this Web site, contact the contest hosts 2008 The American Institute of Architects, All Rights Reserved. The American Institute of Architects :: Top Ten Green Projects http://www.aiatopten.org/hpb/overview.cfm?ProjectID=796 2 of 2 9/1/2008 4:48 P M 83

PAGE 81

84AIA/COTE Report Overview for the World Birding Center Headquarters Appendix 2

PAGE 82

Architects & the Public Practice of Architecture Knowledge Communities Emerging Professionals Photo credit: Hester + Hardaway, Paul Hester About Us | Advocacy | Awards | Career Center | Contract Documents | Education | Events | Find an Architect | Press/News | Store Overview Process Finance Land Use Site and Water Energy Materials Indoor Environment Images Ratings and Awards Lessons Learn More Home | Help World Birding Center HeadquartersOverview Location: Mission, TX Building type(s): Interpretive Center New construction 13,000 sq. feet (1,210 sq. meters) Project scope: multiple buildings Rural setting Completed January 2004 A joint effort between the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and local communities established the World Birding Center to "significantly increase the appreciation, understanding, and conservation of birds and wildlife habitat." Many of the project's nine sites in the lower Rio Grande Valley seek to repair or reestablish the rich natural landscape. The World Birding Center Headquarters, located in Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park, was intended to form a gateway between disturbed land that was cleared for agricultural purposes some 30 years ago and more then 1,700 acres of adjacent native habitat that is being reclaimed and established as a habitat preserve. This project was chosen as an AIA Committee on the Environment Top Ten Green Project for 2006. It was submitted by Lake|Flato Architects, in San Antonio, Texas. Additional project team members are listed on the "Process" screen. Environmental Aspects The design and construction theme was to do more with less. Through the process of "right sizing," the buildings were reduced to 13,000 ft2, reducing first cost, material and energy use, and maintenance requirements. Structural arched panels enclose the maximum space with the least material and use 48% less steel, by weight, than traditional steel framing. A flooded habitat demonstration garden exhibits the characteristics of the natural flooded Resaca environment and forms the focal point of the design. All landscape planting was strictly limited to species native to the region. Land surrounding the buildings is being restored to its native state and will exhibit various stages of restoration. A 47,000-gallon rainwater collection system is utilized for irrigation and for a wildlife trough. A series of rainwater guzzlers, natural pools, and water seeps provides much-needed water for birds and butterflies. Water-efficient fixtures and waterless urinals minimize indoor potable water use. Energy-efficiency strategies include high-efficiency, variable-speed mechanical cooling equipment; on-demand water heaters; and efficient lighting. Shielded exterior lighting protects this important night sky and migration flyway. Owner & Occupancy Owned and occupied by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, State government Typically occupied by 15 people, 40 hours per person per week; and 185 visitors per The American Institute of Architects :: Top Ten Green Projects http://www.aiatopten.org/hpb/overview.cfm?ProjectID=659 1 of 2 9/1/2008 4:57 P M 85

PAGE 83

week, 2 hours per visitor per week Keywords Integrated team Green framework Open space preservation, Wildlife habitat, Indigenous vegetation, Stormwater management Water harvesting, Efficient fixtures and appliances Efficient irrigation Drought-tolerant landscaping, Massing and orientation, Insulation levels Glazing Passive solar Lighting control and daylight harvesting Efficient lighting Adaptable design, Durability, Salvaged materials, Recycled materials, Local materials, Connection to outdoors, Daylighting Low-emitting materials next topic: Process Last updated: 4/20/2006 Our thanks to the ENERGY STAR program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and to the U.S. Department of Energy and to BuildingGreen, Inc. for hosting the submission and judging forms. For more information about the AIA/COTE Top Ten Green Projects, contact AIA/COTE For help on how to use this Web site, contact the contest hosts 2008 The American Institute of Architects, All Rights Reserved. The American Institute of Architects :: Top Ten Green Projects http://www.aiatopten.org/hpb/overview.cfm?ProjectID=659 2 of 2 9/1/2008 4:57 P M 86

PAGE 84

87AIA/COTE Report Overview for the Pocono Environmental Education Center Appendix 3

PAGE 85

88 Architects & the Public Practice of Architecture Knowledge Communities Emerging Professionals Photo credit: Nic Lehoux About Us | Advocacy | Awards | Career Center | Contract Documents | Education | Events | Find an Architect | Press/News | Store Overview Process Finance Land Use Site and Water Energy Materials Indoor Environment Images Ratings and Awards Lessons Learn More Home | Help Pocono Environmental Education and Visitor Center (Pocono Environmental Education Center)Overview Location: Dingmans Ferry, PA Building type(s): Assembly New construction 7,750 sq. feet (720 sq. meters) Project scope: a single building Rural setting Completed October 2005 The Pocono Environmental Education and Visitor Center is designed to reinforce the organization's mission of environmental stewardship and education. The building is a flexible, multipurpose gathering space for dining, meetings, lectures, and other environmental learning activities. The building is designed to serve as a teaching tool for environmental education. Arriving at the site, visitors pass through a forest, cross a wetland, enter the building through an opening in the dark north wall, and cross through a bar of service spaces into the bright, daylit main room. The south-facing shed is designed to take full advantage of the warmth of the sun, cool mountain breezes, abundant natural light, and views of the forest. This project was chosen as an AIA Committee on the Environment Top Ten Green Project for 2008. It was submitted by Bohlin Cywinski Jackson in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Additional project team members are listed on the "Process" screen. Environmental Aspects Through careful siting, materials selection, analysis, and design of building systems, the structure outwardly expresses the principles of green design. Because it serves as a teaching tool, the building makes many of its green building strategies apparent to visitors. The north wall at the main entrance to the building is clad in shingles cut from reclaimed tires gathered from local sources where they had been discarded. Operable windows provide natural ventilation to the main activity space, encouraging occupants to think about their own comfort and the environmental impacts of heating and cooling. South-facing windows provide passive solar gain in the winter, lowering heating costs. Overall, the building was designed to be resource and energy efficient, both from a first-cost standpoint and from an operational one due to the tight budgetary constraints of this small environmental center. Owner & Occupancy Owned and occupied by Pocono Environmental Education Center and National Park Service, Corporation, nonprofit Typically occupied by 8 people, 35 hours per person per week; and 250 visitors per week, 25 hours per visitor per week Keywords Integrated team Green framework Simulation Green specifications, PerformanceThe American Institute of Architects :: Top Ten Green Projects http://www.aiatopten.org/hpb/overview.cfm?ProjectID=1016 1 of 2 8/11/2008 2:03 P M

PAGE 86

89 measurement and verification Operations and maintenance Open space preservation, Wildlife habitat, Wetlands, Indigenous vegetation, Stormwater management Massing and orientation, Glazing Passive solar Lighting control and daylight harvesting Efficient lighting Adaptable design, Durability, Benign materials, Salvaged materials, Recycled materials, Local materials, Connection to outdoors, Daylighting Natural ventilation, Low-emitting materials next topic: Process Last updated: 4/22/2008 Our thanks to the ENERGY STAR program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and to the U.S. Department of Energy and to BuildingGreen, Inc. for hosting the submission and judging forms. For more information about the AIA/COTE Top Ten Green Projects, contact AIA/COTE For help on how to use this Web site, contact the contest hosts 2005 The American Institute of Architects, All Rights Reserved. The American Institute of Architects :: Top Ten Green Projects http://www.aiatopten.org/hpb/overview.cfm?ProjectID=1016 2 of 2 8/11/2008 2:03 P M

PAGE 87

90Manatee County Mosquito Ditches Construction Proposal Appendix 4

PAGE 88

91

PAGE 89

Above Rattlensnake Key (formerly known as McGill Island) 1951 Historic Aerial Photograph92