Rationale

Introduction

For this portion of the project, I designed the layout of the museum. I worked with my project partner Michaela Altland, who designed alternate interior wall layouts, and created alternate exhibit layouts for each of her solutions in accordance with design principles I researched, the expected type and breadth of topics that will comprise the content of the museum, and the plans that my other project partner Margaret Goddard designed to create documentaries for the museum. These designs include alternate circulation patterns, the location in which each topic in the museum’s content will be covered, potential furniture and exhibit display arrangements, and spatial and seating accommodations for Margaret’s documentaries. I will assess the validity of each alternate solution in terms of the specifications and limitations I set up for the exhibit layout portion of this project, which include criteria such as minimum dimensions around exhibits for unobstructed access by disabled users, clarity of circulation, and appropriateness of space and room design for accompanying topic of content, among others. Using these criteria, I will assess my alternate solutions and design an optimal finalized solution.

Alternate Solution 1

The first alternate solution works with Michaela Altland’s “open space” floor plan. The front entrance leads to the left to the reception area, where visitors purchase tickets. The back entrance, accessible via a ramp installed for the back door, leads the visitor through the gift shop to the reception area. In front of the circulation desk is a waiting area, consisting of chairs, a table, and a shelf for brochures and museum guides. From the reception area, visitors move through Exhibit #1, the Sandy Hook Background exhibit, a narrower room (7’1/8” wide) that leads to a documentary space for a continuation of the Sandy Hook exhibit. This documentary room provides seating for at least six visitors on the two couches, and enough room for one wheelchair (which requires 32”x48” of space). The exhibit then moves back through Exhibit #1, across the entrance hall that leads to the reception desk, and to Exhibit #2, the exhibit about Art and Science as Mutual Inspirations. This exhibit follows a circular circulation around a cylindrical 36” high kiosk in the center of the room.

The exhibit then moves upstairs, where it follows a streamlined circulation path counterclockwise beginning with the farthest right room, a documentary room for the Astronomy/Alchemy and Renaissance video. The room accommodates one visitor in a wheelchair, and at least two people on the bench. I designed the room to accommodate three video screens, but one can replace them if the final solution for Margaret consists of a single video. As the visitor exits the documentary room, the exhibit moves to their right to Exhibit #3, the Impressionism exhibit. Before entering the room, the visitor approaches a wall that divides the doorway, leaving a right-hand entrance and left-hand exit. On the wall is the title and introduction wall decal announcing the exhibit. The pathway circulates around the wall divider, past an interactive video display, and to their right to the next doorway, also divided by a wall with a title announcing the exhibits, which include Art Nouveau, Cubism/Surrealism, and Modern Connections. This room, Exhibit #4, circulates counterclockwise from the right-hand entrance in the doorway to the left-hand exit. Within the exhibit room are two box-shaped wall dividers, which each add four additional walls for exhibition space and organize circulation.

As the visitor exits this exhibit space, they continue downstairs, where they exit from the entrance or visit the gift shop. If they visit the gift shop, they purchase items at the reception desk.

Beneficial Design Aspects

The highlights of this design include its two entrances, which allow for handicap accessibility and clear direction to a central reception area. The waiting area and reception areas are spacious and organized. Exhibits #2, 3, and 4 have circular circulation paths that make the chronology of the idea hierarchy and visitor transit clear, as compared to a room without division by walls or exhibits in the center of the floor.

The museum content is split between floors effectively: the first floor consists of background information and the inspiration between art and science, while the second consists of the influences between art and science. The division between floors increases the clarity of this transition between concepts.

The many wall dividers in the exhibit spaces increase the surface area of wall for exhibits, increase organization, and allow for the display of topics’ titles, which increases the visitor’s awareness of ideas and the transitions among them. Exhibit #4 is spacious, and accommodates the disabled very well. Both documentary rooms can be enclosed by doors, as per Margaret’s specification.

Negative Design Aspects

Documentary #1, if created, will be a shorter video mainly used as an introduction tool, and therefore does not require an entire room or much seating accommodations; while documentary #2 will be a longer, 10-minute video, requiring seating for multiple visitors. However, the room for documentary #1 is large and suited for viewers, and the room for documentary #2 is small and does not seat a large audience. Therefore, the room layout does not match the content very well in this case. Although the rooms provide a method of enclosing the space, doors give yield feelings of inaccessibility among visitors, and the space seems secluded in a detrimental way.

            The circulation on the first floor is confusing. The user must retrace their steps back through Exhibit #1 to proceed in the circulation, and the space is narrow, and two-way transit will cause confusion with visitors moving in both directions and standing stationary in the room, especially factoring in disabled visitors.

After arriving back to the reception area, the user must pass the stairs and go through Exhibit #2 before again returning to move upstairs. Although good design consists of providing views of later destinations for visitors as they circulate, these destinations are readily accessible during the circulation, confusing the user as to the intended path to travel.

Final Thoughts

On the first floor, the circulation system detracts from the museum’s cohesion, and the room sizes for documentaries do not fully accommodate the content. However, the second floor’s wall dividers increase clarity in ideas and in circulation. The division of topics between floors is effective and indicates conceptual shifts to the user. I will pull a fair amount of ideas from this solution for the finalized solution.

Alternate Solution 2

            The second alternate solution works with Michaela Altland’s floor plan with the back entrance serving as the only entrance. The entrance leads through a furnished foyer/waiting area and to the reception area, which features roped lines in front of the desk. The exhibit begins in the adjacent room. Exhibit #1 is Sandy Hook Background, and features an open-space room with a video on one wall. The visitor moves counterclockwise through Exhibit #1 and exits to the stairs, where the exhibit continues.

            Upstairs, the circulation pattern moves clockwise from left to right around the floor. The first exhibit is to the immediate left from the stairs, where the doorway is bisected by a T-shaped wall divider. The visitor follows the designated path along the divider through the Art and Science as Mutual Influences exhibit, Exhibit #2, and reaches curtains enclosing the Astronomy/Alchemy/Renaissance documentary space. The space includes a bench to accommodate about two visitors, and adequate space for at least four visitors in wheelchairs. The end of this section is designated by curtains at the opposite side. The visitor passes through the Impressionism exhibit and exits Exhibit #3.

            The entrance to Exhibit #4, Art Nouveau, is partially blocked by a wall divider to create two-way transit paths in the doorway. Exiting Exhibit #4 after circulating through leads the visitor to Exhibit #5, Cubism/Surrealism, a separate, smaller room on the visitor’s left. Upon leaving, the visitor returns to the staircase, and completes the circuit on the first floor.

            On the first floor, the visitor continues to the right, through Exhibit #6, the Modern Connections exhibit. They pass through this and the gift shop, and arrive back at the reception area, where they can purchase items or proceed towards the exit.

Pros

The highlights of this solution are primarily in its organization of content. Each topic exists in its own room (counting the curtained documentary section as a separate room), making concepts clearly divided for users. The circulation is streamlined, follows a clockwise or counterclockwise direction on either floor, and is continuous everywhere except in the transfer between floors. Even though our team no longer plans to include a gift shop, placing the merchandise in a location necessary to pass in transit is an effective business strategy, and would be beneficial. The wall dividers in Exhibits #2, 3, and 4 allow for organized circulation and titles/introductions on walls. The documentary room in the midst of the other exhibits makes the video experience more intertwined with the rest of the museum experience. The documentary room accommodates multiple visitors on benches and in wheelchairs comfortably.

Cons

            The documentary in the middle of the main exhibit room could create a more integrated experience, but is only separated by curtains, and therefore presents potential distraction among visitors in the surrounding exhibits. In addition, some visitors may prefer to not watch the documentary, but will have to circulate through the room anyway to continue the exhibit. Constant circulation through the documentary room may detract from the viewing experience for those watching the documentary.

            The separation between concepts as manifested in transit between floors is adequate. The second floor begins with the Science and Art as Mutual Inspirations, which transitions well from the Sandy Hook content, but also creates the problem of the bulk of the content on the second floor. This solution does not make use of wall space for content as effectively as possible. The final exhibit, Modern Connections, has adequate space for displays, but the room layout—or lack thereof, as the room is small and has no dividers—does not enhance or highlight the important, conclusive topic.

            The rope dividers in the reception area are most likely unnecessary, and only take up more space. The entrance foyer is crowded with furnishings, which could be removed or decreased in amount. Finally, the layout does not include an elevator or ramp, and so might not be completely viable in the current state the design is in.

Final Thoughts

The circulation system in the museum is continuous and effective save for the documentary room, which could present issues when placed in the midst of other exhibits. Some negative features of the design can be removed easily, such as the foyer furnishings, while others would require major adjustment, such as the compatibility of the content with the accompanying room (especially in the case of Modern Connections). The solution contains a fair amount of ideas I will include in the finalized solution.

Alternate Solution 3

            The third alternate solution works with Michaela Altland’s streamlined path floor plan.  The visitors enter through the front entrance only, and proceed to the reception area. The visitor moves through Exhibit #1, Sandy Hook Background, to the Astronomy/Alchemy/Renaissance documentary. This room contains a bench for two visitors and space to accommodate one visitor in a wheelchair. Visitors exit to the right and move upstairs.

            The second floor main hallway is bisected by a wall divider. Visitors come upstairs by the staircase on their left, and move clockwise through the left-hand exhibit rooms, around the wall divider, through the right-hand exhibit rooms, and back downstairs on the other side of the divider. The first left-hand exhibit room covers Art and Science as Mutual Inspirations around a cylindrical kiosk that increases organization and adds wall space. The exhibit room continues to an identical kiosk on the opposite side, where Impressionism is covered. As the visitor leaves Exhibit #2 and moves along the wall, Art Nouveau is introduced. The visitor reaches and continues this exhibit as circulate around the wall. In Exhibit #4, a wall divides the Cubism/Surrealism room and provides direction for clockwise circulation around the room. The exit leads back downstairs, where the visitor must retrace the path through the documentary room and Exhibit #1, pass by the reception area, and then move to the Modern Connections room adjacent to the reception area. Exhibit #5 is divided by a diagonal wall divider, which directs the circulation clockwise through to the exit.

Pros

            The staff at the reception area have unobstructed views of the entrance and waiting area. The waiting and reception areas are spacious. The cylindrical kiosks and long wall divider bisecting the hallway increase organization and make paths very clear for visitors. Exhibit #2 is very spacious and can accommodate disabled users comfortably. Exhibit #3, the Impressionism exhibit along the bisecting wall, provides clear direction and transition to the final exhibit relating to art and science as mutual influences, and provides ample space for users in wheelchairs to navigate comfortably.

            The solution includes ample space for Cubism/Surrealism, which will most likely be an extensive topic with a large amount of displayed information. The multiple interactive displays improve this area due to the nature of the content, and the likelihood that the exhibit will consist primarily of interactive displays. The diagonal wall divider in Exhibit #5 adds character and interest to the room by setting it apart from others in wall layout.

Cons

             The circulation in the beginning of the exhibit, in which the visitor must walk behind the reception desk to the first room, is awkward and unclear. Transit through the documentary room is necessary to continue the exhibit: one cannot access the stairs from any other door, and reentry to the reception area is awkward coming from behind the desk. This poses potential problems of discomfort in users who would prefer to skip the documentary. In addition, the documentary room only has minimal seating for the main, 10-min video. Finally, the documentary only moved forward one topic in the outline, but its placement before Art and Science as Mutual Inspirations slightly disrupts the coherence of the exhibit, as the order becomes art and science as mutual influences, then mutual inspirations, then mutual influences again.

            Although the long wall bisecting the hallway increases organization, the rigidity of the design might stress visitors. Their path is clear, but they cannot see parts of the exhibit beyond the displays immediately near or in front of them, which may yield a feeling of a lack of control in visitors and produce negative reactions.

            Exhibit #3 has ample room for transit by visitors, but may present problems if multiple visitors remain stationary around the interactive display and block circulation.

            The pathway coming downstairs, in which the visitor must go back through the first exhibits and reception area, is awkward, inconsistent with chronology, and inconvenient. Constant two-way transit through the reception area and first exhibits will increase the stress of the environment and the confusion among visitors. Navigation to the final exhibit room is not obvious to visitors in the layout.

            Finally, our group recently learned that such a ramp is not possible in accordance with National Park Service regulations, as the staircase is a character-defining feature and must be left intact. Although the solution could be altered to fit this specification, the overall design has many flaws, and we will most likely only pull a few ideas from this layout when finalizing the solution.

Final Thoughts

Alternate Solution 3 has ample open space and clear organization on the second floor. However, the circulation on between floors is confusing, the documentary room only accommodates a minimal audience, and the restrictive pathways could produce negative visitor effects. This solution contains only some ideas that we will include in the finalized solution.
Alternate Solution 4

            The fourth alternate solution works with Michaela Altland’s elevator design floor plan. The visitor proceeds from the front entrance to the right, a combination reception area and gift shop opened up spatially with the removal of the right-hand entrance wall. The visitor begins the circulation in the farthest left room. Exhibit #1 covers Sandy Hook history, and consists of a room divided by a wall containing an internal exhibit case, and a smaller side room containing multiple screens for short videos about Sandy Hook. The visitor circulates through these two rooms, then proceeds through to Exhibit #2 (a narrower, transitory exhibit space) and Exhibit #3 (a more open space that leads to the elevator and staircase at the end), both of which cover Art and Science as Mutual Inspirations.

            Upstairs, the exhibit circulates counterclockwise from right to left. The first room is the documentary room for Anatomy/Alchemy/Renaissance. The doorway is partially blocked by a wall divider, and the openings through the doorway are covered by curtains. Inside the room, a bench seating 3-4 visitors sits in front of a curved projecting screen, with enough room for one visitor in a wheelchair on one side. The exhibit continues in the large exhibit room counterclockwise. Art Nouveau is covered first in the side bisected by a wall divider and with space for display cases against the wall. Impressionism is between the two wall dividers forming a “tunnel,” and Cubism/Surrealism is on the outside of the divider that leads around to Modern Connections on the opposite side, an area with another wall divider identical to the first in Art Nouveau. The visitor exits Exhibit #4, continues downstairs, and either visits the gift shop by the reception area or exits the building.

Pros

            The removal of the wall by the entrance opens up the space and increases awareness in the visitor of where to proceed to pay for admission. The gift shop combined with the reception area allows for more space allotted for exhibition content. Sandy Hook Background information being adjacent to the beginning of the art and science exhibits, but still separated by a wall, increases cohesion without sacrificing clarity of hierarchy in the museum. The documentary room for Sandy Hook Background allows for adequate space for at least two visitors in wheelchairs to comfortably remain stationary without obstructing circulation. Exhibit #3 is spacious and clear for navigation.

            The enclosure of the second documentary room by curtains, and the room being made separate, increase the seclusion of the viewers without completely pulling them out of the museum experience. The bench accommodates a fair amount of viewers (but only one disabled visitor).

            The four wall dividers in the large exhibit room break up the space and add extra wall space, which is necessary with four topics covered in one space.

Cons

            The lack of both walls by the entrance, although increasing visitor understanding of the initial destination, removes the formality of the act of entering the space. Separating the act of approach and entrance from the first destination creates a more distinct experience for the visitor. Although the gift shop-reception combination saves space, the group recently decided not to pursue the option of including a gift shop. In addition, the presence of a gift shop limits the opportunity to add a waiting area, a space important for maintaining visitor comfort. The videos are short, but the documentary room for Sandy Hook Background does not include seating for visitors, and would need to be revised. Exhibit #2 contains narrow pathways around box kiosks: although visitors in wheelchairs can navigate through, the aisle can only accommodate one wheelchair going one way at a time, which would increase discomfort among stationary and transitory visitors both in and not in wheelchairs.

            The documentary room can only accommodate one visitor in a wheelchair, and somewhat uncomfortably as a result of the closeness in proximity of the bench to the screen.

            Although the dividers in the large exhibit room, Exhibit #4, add wall space, they decrease organization to the extent that the amount of walls and the parallel “tunnel” formation of the two central walls create many paths and the suggested route unclear. The visitor has the option between two paths to see Impressionism or Cubism/Surrealism; and although good design gives visitors a feeling of control over the situation in their space, the many turns and surfaces in this design would more likely yield frustration in visitors. The design could be altered to include less walls, but based on the same concept, so that the visitor has enough control over the situation to feel comfortable while still feeling aware of the route and hierarchy. Finally, the many wall surfaces increase ability to cover information, but the surfaces are small and the presentation would feel rushed to the visitors.

            Modern Connections, the conclusive exhibit of the museum, presents ideas conceptually different than the preceding exhibits regarding artistic and scientific influence. Therefore, although the museum’s effectiveness is not blatantly harmed in presenting Modern Connections in Exhibit #4 with the others, the effectiveness could be increased if Modern Connections were spatially different, by being in a separate room or floor, to highlight the conceptual difference.

Final Thoughts

The design is spacious and well-accommodating for the content downstairs (everywhere except Exhibit #2, which is narrow), but sacrifices space upstairs, creating crowded, divided exhibits.

Finalized Solution

The variable nature of interior design and the range of positive and negative aspects existing in every design caused me to follow through with the framework from Alternate Solution 4, whose circulation system exceeds in clarity over those of the other solutions. However, I pulled qualities from every solution to form the final, optimized solution.

The design contains a front and back entrance for handicap accessibility, but the back foyer is left unfurnished for ease of transit. The reception desk has an unobstructed view of the back entrance, and is in close proximity to the front entrance. The amount of space for each topic of content matches the breadth of content that the museum will cover: Sandy Hook Background is in Exhibit #1, because the exhibit will be more introductory and transitional than one requiring a full room. The division between floors provides a conceptual transition.

The upstairs circulation is counterclockwise beginning with the documentary room inspired by that of alternate solution 4. However, the design was modified to include more handicap accessibility. From there, the visitor moves to the large exhibit hall, whose doorway is partially blocked by a wall divider to create two way transit spaces. The visitor circulates from Art Nouveau to Impressionism, then to Cubism/Surrealism. The room uses box wall dividers to increase circulation clarity while limiting the potential paths the visitor can take.

The visitor returns downstairs to the Modern Connections exhibit on their immediate left. This also uses floor division to highlight conceptual shifts for the conclusive exhibit. After circulating around a wall divider, the visitor proceeds to the exit.

This design best uses the space to highlight conceptual shifts, accommodate the documentary, and match the content to the room size.