Quarry Visitor Center, U.S. Highway 40, 8 miles north of Jensen, Jensen

Source document Quoted word for word from HABS UT-138. Not written, edited or summarised by this site.

The Quarry Visitor Center is one of the four most significant visitor centers produced by the "Mission 66" program, which transformed the American national park system to meet postwar conditions. The program focused on the "visitor center" as its central planning and design element. Quarry Visitor Center was one of the earliest and most successful examples of the new building type. This building established new standards for visitor center design, and became a unique example of "in situ" interpretation of park resources. The building is an architectural type specimen as one of the most ( \ significant examples of Park Service Modem architectural style.

The Quarry Visitor Center was an early, precedent setting example of the new, modem style embraced by the Park Service as part of Mission 66. Anshen and Allen, among the most important American modem architects, designed the building. More than any other early Mission 66 visitor center, Quarry Visitor Center legitimized modem architectural style for use in national parks. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page2 PART!.

Historical Information

Date of Erection: Quarry Visitor Center was completed and accepted. Quarry Visitor Center was dedicated. Architects: Anshen and Allen, Architects; Richard Hein, Project Architect Original and Subsequent Owner: National Park Service Builders, Contractors, and Suppliers: R. K. McCullough Construction Co., Robert D. Dewell, Dames and Moore, Chen Northern Incorporated, Delta Geotechnical Consultants SUMMARY The Quarry Visitor Center (Dinosaur National Monument) is of extraordinary national importance and is associated with the Park Service's "Mission 66" program, which transformed the American national park system to meet postwar conditions. The park "visitor center" was the central planning and design element of the Mission 66 program.

The visitor center was the most significant architectural expression of national park development in the postwar period and subsequently became the centerpiece of park planning of all types both nationally and abroad. Quarry Visitor Center was one of the earliest and most successful examples of the new building type. The building established new standards for visitor center design, and became a unique example of'' in situ" interpretation of park resources. The Dinosaur Quarry Visitor Center was a very high profile project (in part because of the contemporary Echo Park dam controversy), and the new building was bound to be scrutinized and take on great significance as a symbol of Park Service stewardship in the postwar era.

The critical and popular acclaim granted the building- despite and because of its extraordinary futuristic design-became an affirmation of the entire modem design direction of the Mission 66 program. The visitor center is also one of the most significant examples of Park Service Modem architectural style. This style relates to contemporary American modernism, and Anshen and Allen were among the most important American modem architects. 1 The Quarry Visitor Center was one of this firm's two most important early commissions (the other is the Sedona Chapel in Arizona). The Quarry Visitor Center was an early, precedent setting example of the new, modem style embraced by the Park Service as part of Mission 66.

More than any other early Mission 66 visitor center, it legitimized modem architectural style for use in national parks. Advanced building technology, efficient materials, and labor-saving construction were also showcased by 1 For the significance of Anshen & Allen see: Emerson Goble, "Architecture for the National Parks." Architectural Record no. 1 (January Richard Hem, "Design: Anshen & Allen, San Francisco, California." AJA Journal (December and Architectural Forum, eds., Building USA (New York: McGraw-Hill, The California Council of the American Institute of Architects presented Anshen & Allen its award for the firm's 50 year contribution to architecture in the United States.

Acknowledging the importance of the building in launching its modernist reputation, the firm continues to work with the National Park Service on the rehabilitation of the Dinosaur Visitor Center. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 3 this benchmark project. The Quarry Visitor Center was the most powerful and influential early example of how modem construction techniques and architectural style could be appropriate and successful for national park development. HISTORIC CONTEXT2 Origins of MISSION 66 In Newton B.

Drury, Director of the National Park Service, described the national parks as "victims of the war." 3 Neglected since the New Deal era improvements of the the national parks were in desperate need of funds for basic maintenance, not to mention protection from an increasing number of visitors. Between and total visits to the national park system jumped from about to almost but park facilities remained essentially as they were before the war. Meeting the increased need for visitor services required significantly larger appropriations from Congress. Throughout his tenure, however, Drury remained unable to obtain adequate appropriations to change the situation. 4 In Comad L.

Wirth took over as director of the Park Service, but at least at first, funding levels continued to lag behind the perceived need for new, enlarged, or renovated park facilities. The conditions Drury had described in soon became a subject of public concern, not to mention ridicule. Social critic Bernard DeVoto led the crusade for park improvement with an article in his Harper's column, "The Easy Chair," entitled "Let's Close the National Parks," which suggested keeping the parks closed to the public until funds could be found to maintain them properly. 5 The story caught the attention of John D.

Rockefeller, a longtime national park supporter, who wrote to President Eisenhower of his concern over this potential "national tragedy." Eisenhower's staffresponded with a standard apology, but Rockefeller's letter did cause the President to request a briefing from Secretary of the Interior Douglas McKay on conditions in the parks. 6 As the need for massive "renovation" of the Park Service entered the 2The following text to page 36 is extracted from Sarah Allaback, Mission 66 Visitor Centers: The History of a Building Type (Washington, DC: GPO, 3 Newton Drury, "The Dilemma of Our Parks," American Forests 55 (June 4 President Hany S Truman also tried to obtain additional funds for the national parks in but his efforts were thwarted by a democratic Congress.

See Elmo Richardson, Dams, Parks and Politics (Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 40. 5 Bernard De Voto, "Let's Close the National Parks," Harper's 207 (October Many popular magazines featured stories warning the public of the dangers of visiting the parks and the slum-like conditions encountered within park boundaries. See Jerome Wood, "National Parks Tomorrow's Slums?" Travel 101 (April Charles Stevenson, "The Shocking Truth about Our National Parks," Reader's Digest 66 (January "Twenty-Four Million Acres of Trouble," in the Saturday Evening Post, took a slightly more sympathetic approach by featuring Conrad Wirth and his ceaseless efforts to improve the Park Service despite inadequate funding. See Saturday Evening Post 3 (July 3, 32, 6 Dwight D.

Eisenhower, Mandate for Change (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page4 public forum and reached the President's desk, the Park Service's pressing maintenance problems continued to mount. 7 During the summer of Department of the Interior Undersecretary Ralph Tudor began a reorganization of his department. According to historian Elmo Richardson, the reorganization allowed Comad Wirth to focus attention on the crisis within the Park Service. Once the door was open, Wirth had an opportunity to begin to press ambitious proposals for increased funding to redress long-standing inadequacies within his agency. 8 Director Wirth' s own recollection of his initial idea for what became known as "Mission 66" is fittingly more dramatic.

In his memoir, Parks, Politics and the People, Wirth remembers one "weekend in February, when he conceived of a comprehensive program to launch the Park Service into the modem age. 9 Rather than submit a yearly budget, as in the past, Wirth would ask for an entire decade of funding that would total hundreds of millions of dollars. Inspired perhaps by other multi-year federal initiatives (particularly in public housing and highway construction), Mission 66 would allow the Park Service to repair and build roads, bridges and trails, hire additional employees, construct new facilities ranging from campsites to administration buildings, improve employee housing, and obtain land for future parks.

The new program would result in a fully modernized national park system in time to celebrate the anniversary of the Park Service in Early in Wirth organized two Park Service committees to plan the Mission 66 program: a steering committee to develop and oversee the planning process, and a Mission 66 committee to make the specific proposals for the program. Representatives from several branches of the Park Service devoted themselves full-time to the project. Lemuel Garrison put aside his new appointment as chief of conservation and protection to act as chairman of the steering committee. In his memoirs, Garrison captures the energy behind the mission and its fearless confrontation of park problems.

Each superintendent was asked to write a list of"everything needed to put 'his' park facilities into immediate condition for managing the current visitor load, while protecting the park itself." 10 They were also to estimate the number of visitors ten years in the future. The Mission 66 staff derived a list of priorities for determining park needs to assist superintendents in their assessments. One result of the project was the development of standards throughout the system. Each park was to have a uniform entrance marker listing park resources, a minimum number of employees, paved trails to popular points of interest, and other basic amenities. Visitors could expect the same basic facilities in every park.

11 7 William Nelson Noll, "Mission 66, the National Park Service Program for the Revitalization of America's National Parks, - (Master of Arts Thesis, Kansas State University, 11 - 12. 8 Richardson, Dams, Parks and Politics, 9 Conrad L. Wirth, Parks, Politics, and the People (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 10 Lemuel A. Garrison, The Making of a Ranger (Salt Lake City, Utah: Howe Brothers, 11 Roy E. Appleman, A History of the National Park Service Mission 66 Program (Washington, Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Pilot studies were also conducted for Yellowstone, Chaco Canyon National Monument, Shiloh National Military Park, Adams Mansion National Historic Site, Fort Laramie, Everglades, and Mesa Verde. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO.

UT-138 page 5 Wirth's preliminary planning of the Mission 66 program was geared toward promotion and, by necessity, selling his idea to Congress and the Eisenhower Administration. The Mission 66 staff was to produce a basic outline of the program for the Public Service Conference at Great Smoky Mountains on September 18, Since a meeting with Eisenhower had been scheduled for May, Wirth hoped to keep details of "Mission 66" confidential until then. However, news of the program leaked out after the Great Smokies conference, which only increased public interest in the program.

After several dry runs and administrative delays, Wirth introduced Mission 66 to the President and his cabinet on January 27, The program received immediate approval, and Mission 66 was officially introduced to the public at an American Pioneer Dinner held at the Department of the Interior on February 8. Highlights of this event included a presentation by Wirth, a Walt Disney movie entitled "Adventure in the National Parks," and the circulation of Our Heritage, a promotional booklet describing the Mission 66 program. Wirth himself was involved in every detail of the carefully orchestrated publicity that followed.

12 Modern Architecture and the National Parks Even before Mission 66 planning began, the Park Service planners and architects were moving away from the traditional "rustic" construction that had characterized prewar park development. There were many reasons for this shift, which mirrored national trends in architectural style, construction technology, and planning policies. Mission 66 reached the drawing boards in the mid- at a time when modem architecture had reached the mainstream of American architectural design. Conrad Wirth was trained as a landscape architect in the and in the he had been responsible for the Park Service's state park development program. His chief of planning and design, Thomas C.

Vint, had been chief landscape architect since and was one of the originators of the Park Service rustic style. Other Park Service designers active in the such as architect Cecil Doty, had been principal Park Service designers during the rustic era. But if in many ways this group continued the tradition of park planning and design that they had created over the previous decades, in other ways, postwar conditions, changing ideas about nature, and new practices in the construction industry necessitated new approaches. Mission 66 designers needed to find new ways for park development to "harmonize" with park settings.

As the negative effects of larger numbers of visitors and their vehicles began to be better understood, for example, Mission 66 planners responded by centralizing services and controlling visitor "flow" in what were called "visitor centers." In some cases, planners proposed removing some park facilities and relying on motels and other businesses springing up in gateway communities to serve visitors. Enlarging parking lots and widening roads encouraged this trend, since faster roads made access in and out of parks quicker. However, under Mission 66, parking lots, comfort stations, gas stations, and other visitor services were bound to proliferate, in any case.

Conrad Wirth remained firmly committed to the idea that the parks were "for the people." Mission 66 planning proceeded under the long-standing assumption at the Park Service that increased numbers of visitors (and their cars) should be accommodated. Modernized and 12 Appleman, "A History of the National Park Service," QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 6 expanded park development, usually restricted to existing road corridors within the parks, was therefore proposed as the essential means of preserving nature to the greatest degree possible, while making sure visitors were not turned away. But if Mission 66 continued traditional assumptions, it also exploited the functional advantages offered by postwar architectural theory and construction techniques.

Mission 66 architects (whether in-house or consultants) employed free plans, flat roofs, and other established elements of modem design in order to create spaces in which large numbers of visitors could circulate easily and locate essential services efficiently. The architects also used concrete construction and prefabricated components for buildings, highways, and other structures. Development was often sited according to new criteria, as well. Visitor centers were located according to functional concerns relating to park circulation, and so were not calculated as components of larger landscape compositions.

Although Mission 66 park development was no longer truly part of the landscape, in this sense, in many cases this meant that buildings could be sited less obtrusively near park entrances or along main roads within the park. Stone veneers, earth-toned colors, and low, horizontal massing also helped continue the tradition of reducing visual contrasts between building and site. Mission 66 architecture was not picturesque or rustic, but it did "harmonize" with its setting (at least in more successful examples), although in a new way. Stripped of the ornamentation and associations of rustic design, Mission 66 development could be both more understated and more efficient than rustic buildings. Park Service designers were following a nearly ubiquitous, international trend in postwar architecture.

Changing styles, changes in architectural training, and perhaps above all, changes in the technology and economics of construction fueled the new trend. But the prospect of abandoning traditional "rustic" architectural design in national parks still provoked an outcry from critics. One of the most outspoken critics of modem architecture in national parks was Devereux Butcher of the National Parks Association.

As early as Butcher wrote of his horror at finding contemporary buildings in Great Smokey Mountains and Everglades national parks and criticized the Park Service for abandoning its "long-established policy of designing buildings that harmonize with their environment and with existing styles." Among the eyesores he discovered was a curio store with "blazing red roof and hideous design," a residence "ugly beyond words to describe," and a utility building that he felt might as well have been a factory. Later in the decade, David Brower and Ansel Adams joined Butcher in condemning such park development, although these critics focused more on issues of resource conservation than architectural style.

13 Despite the criticism of Butcher and others, the Park Service felt it had remained consistent with its tradition of architectural design in harmony with the surrounding landscape. In fact, the 13 Devereux Butcher, "For a Return to Harmony in Park Architecture," National Parks Magazine 26, no. 111 (October-December See also David Brower, '"Mission 66' is Proposed by Reviewer of Park Service's New Brochure on Wilderness," National Parks Magazine 32, no. 132 (January-March Weldon F. Heald, "Urbanization of the National Parks," National Parks Magazine 35, no. 160 (January Ansel Adams, "Yosemite--1958, Compromise in Action," National Parks Magazine 32, no.

135 (October-December That Butcher's opinions remained unaltered over the decade is indicated by his article, "Resorts or Wilderness?" in Atlantic Monthly no.2 (February QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 7 design methodology behind the use of rustic architecture was adapted to explain contemporary design decisions. According to Director Wirth, Mission 66 buildings were intended to blend into the landscape, but through their plainness rather than by identification with natural features. Even the qualities that defined rustic architecture might draw attention to a building intended to serve a practical function. 14 The Park Service communicated this architectural philosophy in its early promotional literature, as well as in its relations with the national media.

In August Architectural Record reported that Mission 66 would produce "simple contemporary buildings that perform their assigned function and respect their environment." 15 The magazine also emphasized that while this policy had traditionally led to the use of stone and redwood, "preliminary designs for the newer buildings show a trend toward more liberal use of steel and glass." Within the Park Service, architects appear to have embraced the opportunity to modernize facilities and experiment with new design concepts. For example, Cecil Doty had designed a rustic masterpiece, the Santa Fe Headquarters building, in By the early however, he recalled "a change in philosophy.... That's why you started seeing [concrete] block in a lot of things.

We couldn't help but change I can't understand how anyone could think otherwise, how it could keep from changing." 16 Doty's statement provides a key to understanding the legacy of Mission 66 architecture, the purpose of which was not to design buildings for atmosphere, whimsy or aesthetic pleasure, but for change: to meet the demands of an estimated eighty million visitors by to anticipate the requirements of modem transportation, and to exercise the potential of new construction technology. As Director Wirth explained, the Park Service not only had to serve greater numbers of visitors, but to understand their increased need for appropriate facilities.

The "stress and restless activity of this machine age, when man is sending satellites spinning into orbit around the sun and our own earth" required more frequent renewal in "the peace and solitude offered by nature." 17 Even critics agreed that some kind of efficient action was necessary to bring the parks up to contemporary standards.

14 Wirth issued a memorandum to the Washington Office and all field offices announcing that field officials attending the Public Services Conference at Great Smoky Mountains (September "recommended that structures be designed to reflect the character of the area while at the same time following up-to-date design standards." He added that "park structures are to conform, to some extent, with the trend toward contemporary design and the use of materials and equipment accepted as standard by the building industry. However, restraint must be exercised in the design so that the structures will not be out of character with the area and so that the structures will be subordinated to their surroundings." See Conrad Wirth Papers Box 6, American Heritage Center (AHC), Laramie, Wyoming.

15 Ernest Mickel, Architectural Record no. 2 (August 32. The New York Times also picked up the story, reporting Park Service officials stating," ... the national parks were maintained as showcases for natural attractions," and therefore Wright's 'modernized type' of building would be out of place among Yosemite's trees and glacier-cut rock cliffs See The New York Times (December 1, 16 Jonathan Searle Monroe, "Architecture in the National Parks: Cecil Doty and Mission (Master of Architecture thesis, University of Washington, 82. "Address by Conrad L. Wirth, Director of National Park Service, at the Dedication of Badlands National Monument and Mission 66 Facilities on Wednesday, September 16, "Speeches, AHC, Laramie, Wyoming. 17 "Address by Conrad L.

Wirth, Director of National Park Service, at the Dedication of Badlands National Monument and Mission 66 Facilities on Wednesday, September 16, "Speeches, AHC, Laramie, Wyoming. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 8 Mission 66 planners and administrators were also clearly caught up in the enthusiasm of the modem movement. Wirth told his steering committee to be "as objective as possible. Each was to be free to question anything if he thought a better way could be found. Nothing was to be sacred except the ultimate purpose to be served.

Man, methods, and time-honored practices were to be accorded no vested deference." 18 A writer for Architectural Record expressed this sense of limitless potential for park architecture in Let us not decide, just because we cannot draw it on the back of an envelope, that the great and sympathetic architecture cannot exist. .. The whole habit of thinking in the parks is the other way. We have not dared to let man design in the parks; we have not asked to see what he might do. We have slapped his hand and told him not to try anything. 19 But the acceptance of modernism and its use in the parks was also a matter of urgency and economics. The Park Service needed to serve huge numbers of people as quickly as possible, and, despite increased funding, it had to do so on a limited budget.

The often less expensive materials that composed modem buildings (steel, concrete, glass) allowed more facilities to be built for more parks. In its publication, Grist, the Park Service praised concrete as "low-cost, long-lived beauty treatment for parks." Asphalt was "nature's own product for nature's preserves," and asbestos-cement products "building materials for beauty, economy, permanence. " 20 Despite the general acceptance of modernism, Americans were still unfamiliar with modem architecture in national parks.

When, in the mid-1950s, The New York Times reported on the controversy surrounding Gilbert Stanley Underwood's Jackson Lake Lodge, the reporter emphasized the contrast between the new concrete building and the area's wild west tradition, noting that "sheepmen," "naturalists," and "gamblers ... now heatedly discuss the pros and cons of modem architecture." Nevertheless, the Times clearly admired "the artful blend of comfortable modem with western" even as critics called it "a slab sided concrete abomination." The Virginian Pilot was more conservative in its coverage of the "modem trend in architectural ideas" exhibited in the shade structures at Coquina Beach, Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Although Park Service architect Donald F.

Benson received a Progressive Architecture award citation for the design, the paper warned that, "until people get used to the modem trend," the new shelters would "cause as much comment as three nude men on a Republican Convention 18Appleman, "A History of the National Park Service," Wirth reprinted this statement in his memoirs. See Parks, Politics and the People, 19 Emerson Goble, "Architecture for the National Parks," Architectural Record no. 1 (January 20Grist, a publication of the National Conference on State Parks in cooperation with the National Park Service, Dept. of the Interior (September-October July-Aug. November-December The story on concrete was written by the Portland Cement Association and that on asphalt by the Asphalt Institute. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO.

UT-138 page9 Program. " 21 The Coquina facilities (destroyed by a storm in the early soon became among the most widely praised designs of the Mission 66 era. 22 The Park Service accepted modernism at a time when the new tradition had aged, and its post- modern backlash not yet emerged. The visitor center designed by Mitchelll Giurgola for the Wright Brothers Memorial was featured in a "news report" in Progressive Architecture suggesting that the Park Service had finally caught up with the standard required by the modem visitor. "The design of visitors' facilities provided for national tourist attractions seems to be decidedly on the upgrade, at least as far as the work for National Park Service is concerned.

One hopes that the rustic-rock snuggery and giant-size 'log cabin' previously favored" 23 are disappearing. That the progressive periodical chose two visitor centers to "exemplify new park architecture" was not surprising. The Park Service intended for the new visitor center buildings to represent the values and results of its system wide development campaign.

Developing a New Building Type: The "Visitor Center" Even before the commencement of the Mission 66 building program, the Park Service had begun to develop a new type of visitor facility, eventually known as the "visitor center." Our Heritage described the visitor center as "one of the most pressing needs, and one of the most useful facilities for helping the visitor to see the park and enjoy his visit." Visitor centers were lauded as "the center of the entire information and public service program for a park. " 24 One hundred and nine visitor centers were slated for construction over the ten-year period.

This new type of park facility would not only embody new park visitor management policies, but also the spirit of Mission 66, which looked forward to an efficient Park Service for the modem age. During the early Park Service architects and planners began developing a centralized service facility that would help manage increased visitations.

The updated facility, equipped with basic services and educational exhibits, was known in its early stages as an "administrative- museum building," "public service building," or "public use building." As this range oflabels 21 Jack Goodman, "Controversy Over Lodge in the West," The New York Times (August 7, Dan Morrill, "No Daub, No Wattles: Coquina Beach at Nags Head to Feature Modem Trend in Architectural Ideas," Virginian-Pilot (July 22, Progressive Architecture 37, no. 1 (January 92. Donald F. Benson grew up in Ottawa, Illinois, and graduated from the University of Illinois with an architectural degree in Benson's work for the Park Service began in when Charles Peterson hired him as an architect in the Philadelphia office. During Mission 66, Benson worked for EODC under John B.

Cabot, designing and supervising the design of visitor centers at Everglades National Park, Saratoga and Hopewell Village (now Hopewell Furnace), among other locations. Benson is now retired and living in Lakewood, Colorado. Interview with Donald F. Benson by the author, March 9, Lakewood, Colorado. 22 Wolf Von Eckardt, "The Park Service Dares to Build Well," Washington Post (March 29, Lois Craig, et al, The Federal Presence (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 23"Two Visitors' Centers Exemplify New Park Architecture," Progressive Architecture 40, no. 2 (February 24 U.S. Department of the Interior. Our Heritage, A Plan for Its Protection and Use: Mission 66" (Washington Government Printing Office, QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO.

UT-138 page 10 suggests, the Park Service was struggling not only to combine museum services and administrative facilities but to develop a new building type that would supplement old-fashioned museum exhibits with modem methods of interpretation. In February Director Wirth issued a memorandum to help clarify the use of terminology applied to the new buildings, explaining that "there are differences in the descriptive title, although most of the buildings are similar in purpose, character and use. " 25 From then on, Wirth expected park staff to use "visitor center" for every such facility, even "in place of Park Headquarters when it is a major point of visitor concentration." As late as however, the matter remained unclear to many park visitors.

When the topic was raised at a design conference, it was noted that "the term 'Visitor Center' is sometimes confusing to the public as it is an unusual and specialized facility which may be associated with shopping centers with which the general public is familiar." 26 If still puzzling to some, the building's label emphasized the novelty of the visitor center and bolstered the Park Service's image with high-profile examples of Mission 66 progress. The Custer Battlefield museum & administration building, designed by Daniel M. Robbins & Associates of Omaha, demonstrates the transition from early Park Service museum buildings to standard Mission 66 visitor centers.

The building was constructed in the first year since World War II that congressional appropriations for the parks included museum funding. 27 A lobby space and offices were incorporated into the new museum, but orientation areas remained small; no audio-visual or auditorium space was included and restrooms were relegated to the basement. Visitor circulation between the various areas does not appear to have been a major consideration. The Department of the Interior Annual Report for announced the commencement of "the first major public use development at Flamingo, on Florida Bay," which would consist of "a boat basin and other developments ...

camping and picnic facilities, dock and shelter building, roads, and water and sewer systems." At this time, "public use" was still a general term, applicable to a marina or an interpretive facility. The report also noted "administration and public-use buildings at Joshua Tree and Saguaro National Monuments, and utility buildinp in Potomac Park, Washington, and at Death Valley National Monument. "2 Other early precedents for visitor centers included the public information centers at Yorktown and Jamestown. The public use building planned for Carlsbad Caverns in July underwent the transition to visitor center during its design and construction.

Preliminary drawings for the building were produced by the Office of Design and Construction in Washington, before the creation of the eastern and western design offices. Thomas C. Vint, chief of the Washington office, signed off on the proposal for a streamlined, two-story public use building with steel and glass facade. It featured a central lobby area and, on the left side, a coffee shop/fountain/dining room, curio 25Conrad Wirth to Washington Office and field offices, memorandum, "Visitor Centers; Park Roads," February 10, 26 "Summary of General Discussions of Visitor Center Design Problems," WODC, February 4, 7. 27 Lewis, Museum Curatorship, 28 Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 11 store, and kitchen.

The museum and auditorium were entered from the right side of the lobby, which included the women's restroom. Park Service offices were in the basement, along with the men's restroom, and on the second floor, where they overlooked the double-height lobby. 29 By December a more detailed preliminary design for the Carlsbad Caverns facility had been drafted in which the entrance lobby was attached to a lounge area on the right side surrounded by restrooms, an exhibit space, and a ticket booth. The concession area was further defined as a curio shop, coffee shop, nursery, playroom, kitchen, and offices.

This design incorporated an existing elevator building constructed in and one wing of the new facility was built by concessioner, the Cavern Supply Company, with guidance from the Mission 66 staff. 30 The Annual Report called it "a public use building and elevator lobby, museum and naturalists' offices." 31 By January "the Public Use Building was in the final stage of preparation," but when bids for construction were opened in March, the building was referred to as a visitor center. 32 In his dedication speech nearly three years later, Conrad Wirth praised the Carlsbad Caverns Visitor Center for its use of "modem design" and "modem high-speed passenger elevators.

" 33 Early proposals for the public use building at Grand Canyon suggest a similar struggle with programmatic aspects of the new facility. Preliminary drawings of the building were produced in with several proposals designed by Cecil Doty. Despite variations in planning, the front fa9ade of the various proposals remained remarkably similar. The entrance area was mostly glass framed in additional brick or stucco. The building was long and low, with little to attract attention except the flagpole and sign. By a courtyard scheme had been chosen for the floorplan, perhaps because its plan allowed for more flexible circulation. Visitors entered a lobby and were confronted with an information desk on their right, directly in front of the rangers and superintendents' offices.

The library and restrooms were straight ahead, and the exhibit space, lecture room, study collection/workshop, and offices arranged in clockwise procession around the courtyard. The public use building was an immediate source of pride for the Park Service, which praised this "visitor center" as "a one-stop service and a park museum "where a great variety of exhibits, arranged in orderly and effective fashion" were among the many conveniences for the visitor. The presence of the park superintendent and naturalist was also considered remarkable, as were the study collection, workshop, and library. According to the Park Service, the new building provided much-needed efficiency and economy.

34 29 These drawings are available on microfiche at the Technical Information Center, Denver Service Center. 30 Building Maintenance Records, "Elevator Carlsbad Cavern's Carlsbad Cavern archives. 31 Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 32 Superintendent's Monthly Reports [R. Taylor Hoskins, Superintendent], Carlsbad Caverns National Park, January 1, and March 3, 33 "Address by Conrad L. Wirth, Director, National Park Service, Dedication of Visitor Center, Carlsbad Caverns National Park, New Mexico, June 12, "Speeches, AHC. 34 Annual Report of the Interior, QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO.

UT-138 page 12 The use of the word "center" to describe these early visitor centers indicated the planners desire to centralize park interpretive and museum displays, new types of interpretive presentations, park administrative offices, restrooms, and various other facilities. The underlying theory relates to contemporary planning ideas such as shopping centers, corporate campuses, and industrial parks, all of which sought to give new civic form to emerging patterns of daily life and urban expansion in the late and Like the shipping center, the visitor center made it possible for people to park their cars at a central point, and from there have access to a range of services or attractions.

Earlier "park village" planning had typically been more decentralized, with different functions (museum, administrations building, comfort station) spread out in an arrangement of individual, rustic buildings. The Mission 66 visitor center brought these activities together in a single, larger building intended to serve as a control point for what planners called "visitor flow," as well as a more efficient means of serving far larger numbers of visitors and cars in a more concentrated area. Centralized activities created a more efficient pattern of public use, and assured that even as their number grew to unprecedented levels, all visitors would receive basic orientation and services in the most efficient way possible.

Considering the commitment of Mission 66 era planners to accommodating the growing numbers of people who wanted to visit the parks, the centralized visitor center was an essential approach to park preservation. The visitor center facilitated, yet concentrated, public activities and so helped prevent more random, destructive patterns of use. The siting of visitor centers was determined by new considerations in park master planning that involved the circulation of unprecedented numbers of people and cars.

While on the one hand the Park Service remained committed to making the parks accessible to all who wanted to use them, on the other agency planners also felt it was desirable to continue to concentrate automotive access in relatively narrow areas and road corridors, most of which were already developed for the purpose. As a result, Mission 66 development plans (at least in older parks) usually called for the intensification of development in existing front country areas, rather than opening back country areas to new uses. This implied road widenings, the expansion of campgrounds and parking lots, and often, the construction of a new visitor center. The visitor center was therefore sited in relation to the overall park circulation plan, in order to efficiently intercept visitor traffic.

These criteria for siting Mission 66 visitor centers differed significantly from the criteria for siting and designing the rustic park villages and museums of the prewar era. The Visitor Center and Mission 66 The planning and design of visitor centers began in the Park Service offices of design and construction in San Francisco (WODC) and Philadelphia (EODC). Both offices had been established as part of the Park Service's reorganization in and both were overseen by the central planning and design office in Washington, Neither the WODC nor the EODC was prepared for the quantity of work Mission 66 would bring to the drawing boards.

Rather than hire additional architects and landscape architects who would have to be laid off at the conclusion of Mission 66, the Park Service planned to contract out work to private firms on a project by project basis. In most cases, the Park Service furnished contract architects with preliminary drawings, which the consultants would then use as the basis for the developed design and contract drawings. In some cases, consultants simply provided the contract drawings for designs that had been fully developed in-house. Visitor centers were typically the most expensive QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 13 new buildings in the parks, as well as high-profile commissions, and therefore attractive to private consulting firms.

35 Whether or not consulting architects were employed, in all projects the Park Service retained control over the location of buildings and, in many cases, significant aspects of the consulting firm's design. The planning of early visitor centers reflected the Mission 66 concern with protection and use, the idea that park development provided the key to preservation. According to the Annual Report, the Park Service decided to locate administration offices, warehouses, shops, and residences away from areas devoted to visitors, creating separate "zones" for maintenance, employee housing, administration, and visitor services. Location within the park was also an important interpretive issue.

Planners debated whether visitor centers provided better visitor orientation from a location near the entrance to the park, or were more effective near a significant feature that visitors would want to see and know more about. In some cases, this issue was resolved by creating secondary visitor centers, which were usually little more than a single exhibit space equipped with restrooms. Throughout the Mission 66 period, the Park Service's overriding goal for its visitor centers was to improve interpretation and stimulate public interest in the park. To do this, the park's "story" was to be told as clearly and effectively as possible. Historians and interpreters played crucial roles in the Mission 66 planning process.

According to Robert Utley, chief historian for the Park Service beginning in historians such as Roy Appleman and Ronald Lee favored siting visitor centers "right on top of the resource" so that visitors could "see virtually everything from the visitor center."36 The location of visitor centers in sensitive areas often occurred at cultural sites and battlefields, where the purpose of the visitor's trip to the site was to gain a fairly comprehensive understanding of an important historic event. The preservation of cultural and natural resources sometimes became a concern, but was rarely articulated, according to Utley. The siting of a visitor center among the ruined structures at Fort Union, for example, was deemed advantageous for interpretation.

During the Mission 66 period, the Park Service strove to educate the public, sometimes even at the expense of encroaching on the historical or natural environment. Mission 66 historians and planners believed that more effective public education justified such encroachments, and that resulting understanding of sites would lead to greater support for preservation. But if this priority meant sometimes siting visitor centers in sensitive areas, it did not extend to other types of development.

Director Wirth emphasized that "definite steps were taken to move as many of the administrative, government housing, and utility buildings and shops as possible out of the national parks to reduce their interference with the enjoyment of park visitors."37 35 The Design and Construction Division benefitted from student trainee and assistant programs that provided the WODC with 90 student architects, engineers, and landscape architects during the summer of EODC was supplied with 75 students. See Annual Report ofthe Secretary of the Interior, 36 Utley in Sellars and Webb, "An Interview with Robert M. Utley." 37 Wirth, Parks, Politics and the People, QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO.

UT-138 page 14 Within the visitor center building, Park Service designers faced the challenge of orienting visitors and directing them to desired services. These design decisions also affected visitor impacts on park resources. The visitor center was considered "the hub of the park interpretive program," and a method of orienting park visitors who "lacking these services, drive almost aimlessly about the parks without adequate benefit and enjoyment from their trips." 38 Not only was the visitor center a signpost intended to attract the aimless visitor within, but also a method of distributing information and other services in the most efficient and significant manner. Park Service architects confronted such issues in the development of building "circulation" or "flow" diagrams.

Visitor circulation patterns were particularly important in this type of building, because people were expected to use the building in different ways; while some would study the exhibits and watch the films, others were only interested in visiting the restrooms or purchasing a park map. At this early date, Park Service architects had no precedents for use patterns, and, therefore, only a vague idea of how the new buildings would function. The Park Service design and construction staff and interpretation staffs held joint meetings on visitor center planning in November (EODC) and February (WODC), and distributed their general findings in a summary.

The discussions focused on participants' experience at early visitor centers, particularly those at Colonial National Historic Park and Grand Canyon. Conference participants discussed the desirability of open design, the need for outdoor rest rooms, the importance of determining anticipated numbers of visitors, and the consideration of administrative requirements. Planning visitor center interpretation in conjunction with roadside and trailside interpretation was also encouraged. Individual spaces were to be designed with environmental factors in mind.

If the lobby served as "a transition area for the harassed visitor between the crowded highway and the park atmosphere," it should "convey a mood and invite a relaxed frame of mind." Assembly rooms had actually become multiple use spaces and, as the example at Jackson Lake Lodge demonstrated, were more effective with flat rather than sloping floors. These spaces also played a role in the visitor's "transition from 'outside' into the park atmosphere." Exhibits might require artificial light for curatorial purposes, but they also benefitted from a little daylight "to avoid claustrophobia." Finally, information counters could only function effectively at the minimum height requirements suggested, and portable counters were often most useful.

39 In his discussion of visitor center placement, John B. Cabot, supervising architect for the EODC, described three potential locations. An entrance visitor center established the mood of the park and introduced the visitor to "the total interpretation of park values." The "en route" center posed the problem of simultaneously introducing the visitor to the park and providing information about the site to be visited. Most common was the "terminal visitor center," located at a popular destination, which supplied the visitor with a summary of park values while incorporating relevant information about the area; architects of these centers were encouraged to make use of surrounding views in their designs. According to Cabot, the location of the visitor center 38 U.S.

Department of the Interior, Mission 66, To Provide Adequate Protection and Development ofthe National Park System for Human Use (Washington, Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 39U.S. Department of the Interior, Visitor Center Planning," Notes on Discussions Held in EODC November and WODC February (Washington, Department of the Interior, QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 15 influenced the development of the building program because placement "affects how, in what sequence, the story is told, as well as how much or how little." This narrative depended, to a great extent, on the type of park under consideration.

Whereas any of the dozens of locations on the edge of natural areas might serve to orient visitors in wilderness parks, most historical parks could only be adequately understood with the help of interpretation presented in close proximity to the commemorative site.

In a January report on visitor centers, the chief of interpretation commended the "desirable" siting of Colonial (Yorktown), which featured an "excellent view of the battlefield from the Siege Line Lookout on the roof of the visitor center," but criticized that of Grand Canyon, which stood midway between Mather Point and Grand Canyon Village, as "too far removed mile) from the Canyon Rim." Park Naturalist Shultz commented that "a visitor center should be 'in touch' with the feature it interprets." 40 Once planners had chosen a building site, architects considered the park's story on a more intimate level.

Cabot demonstrated how "visitor sequence diagrams" (flow diagrams) showed alternatives for visitor travel through a series of spaces; a typical example placed reception line information (lobby) in the center, with the assembly (auditorium), toilets, administration and interpretation (museum exhibits) areas grouped around it. In the diagrams, spaces were represented by circles of varying sizes. One alternative placed a circulation terrace between the various areas, allowing the visitor to choose his or her route. Cabot suggested that architects develop a sequence analysis, flow diagram and estimates of spatial dimensions before beginning preliminary drawings.

Such planning required a close working relationship between museum professionals and architects, as indicated by Cabot's lengthy outline for visitor center design. 41 The "architectural treatment" of assembly or audio-visual rooms depended, in part, on mechanical systems and park programs. Funding for certain "audio-visual devices" became available in too late for incorporation into early visitor center plans, such as the Fort Frederica Visitor Center on St. Simons Island, Georgia.

In the future, Ronald Lee recommended supplying architects with audio-visual related information, including descriptions of the devices, whether accommodations were needed for slide or film projectors, the audience's seating requirements, and the possibility of dividing auditorium space for several smaller presentations. Architectural consideration of such factors would lead to the development of "rooms which open from the lobby and which are separated from the exhibit rooms in order to keep the devices from distracting the visitor in his enjoyment of the exhibits."42 Both Cabot and Lee encouraged architects to work closely with the interpretive branch and to contact consultants at the Washington Office for assistance in designing suitable spaces.

The professional partnership between Park Service designers and planners and interpreters and curators dated back at least to the creation of the Museum Division in During the planning 40 "A Report on Visitor Centers" (Washington: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, ca. January National Park Service History Collection, Harpers Ferry Center. 41 Visitor Center Planning, 42Ronald L. Lee, Chief, Division oflnterpretation to Chief, Eastern Office of Design and Construction, memorandum, "Audio-Visual Space Requirements in Visitor Center Buildings," ca. November, Box 29; "WASO Design and Construction Correspondence," Regional Archives, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO.

UT-138 page 16 stages of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, the Museum Division developed exhibits for the future museum and catalogued significant architectural fragments from the site as it was cleared for construction. In the early architect Lyle Bennett wrote up a "Checklist for Museum Planning," addressing issues that would become relevant in his Mission 66 visitor centers designs. The close relationship between exhibit and architectural designers was strengthened by Tom Vint during the early years of Mission 66. Vint discussed exhibits at Grand Canyon with architect Cecil Doty, and it was typical for him to consult with Ralph Lewis or another museum expert on interpretive aspects of visitor center design.

43 Ten years after the official conclusion of Mission 66, Lewis published Manual for Museums, a technical handbook for curators on collections management. Although visitor centers are beyond the scope of the work, its frontispiece is a color photograph of the Mission 66 visitor center at Wright Brothers National Memorial. This "characteristic example of museums in the National Park System," was still a suitable representation of current Park Service curatorial standards nearly twenty years construction. aft er its 44 Mission 66 caused a surge of activity in the museum branch of the Park Service that led to the reopening of the Western Museum Laboratory in San Francisco's Old Mint building.

45 Within months of its organization, the laboratory began work on exhibits for Quarry Visitor Center at Dinosaur National Monument, the Mission 66 building slated for a grand opening June 1, 46 Correspondence between the Division of Interpretation and the director indicates that Park Service exhibit professionals influenced the design of the center. The contract architects, Anshen & Allen, drew up exhibit plans based on the Western Museum laboratory's requirements. In April, the laboratory corrected some circulation problems in the construction drawings. 47 Since the laboratory must have provided preliminary designs, other alterations may have taken place during the planning process.

The development of the visitor center not only increased the demand for museum work, but also opportunities to supplement traditional dioramas and displays with more innovative "hands on" exhibits and audio-visual productions. The Mission 66 report of noted that museums were frequently part of the administration building or visitor center and emphasized the great importance of museum collections in preserving "priceless national legacies." Audio-visual 43 Ralph H.

Lewis, Museum Curatorship in the National Park Service, (Washington, Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 44 Lewis, Manual for Museums (Washington, Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 45 "The Eastern Museum Laboratory increased its exhibit construction staff to about 30 and the Western Laboratory reopened with a staff of fifteen." In anticipation of over a hundred new visitor centers and the rehabilitation of exhibits in about forty existing museums, the Museum Division "planned laboratory facilities to maintain a permanent production rate of250 exhibits per year." Another one hundred and fifty exhibits were to be obtained through contractors.

See Lewis, draft, "Reexamination of the Museum Phases of Mission National Park Service History Collection, Harpers Ferry Center. 46 Lewis, "Museum Curatorship," 47 John W. Jenkins to Director, May 6, in "Dinosaur Interpretive Plans, vol. 1, Quarry Visitor Center Exhibit Plan," library, Denver Service Center. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 17 presentations were also seen as a means of reducing costs and presenting interpretive material more quickly and effectively. Improvements in mechanical systems and the production ofhigh- quality 16 mm films were the wave of the future. This technology would replace more traditional museum exhibits--and change the role of museum professionals--in later visitor centers, such as the headquarters at Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado.

Even the preliminary designs for this building featured an enlarged audio-visual room rather than exhibit space, demonstrating the transformation from museum-administration building to visitor center within the decade. 48 The cover of"Mission 66 in Action," a brochure promoting the program, features a streamlined, modem visitor center and viewing terrace dotted with visitors. 49 Another drawing of a simple, rectangular visitor center building is pictured inside. Thirty-four of these new "focal points of park activity" had already been completed and twenty were under construction. By this time, the Park Service was on its way toward establishing standards for visitor centers, at least in terms of in-house examples.

The design conference offered park architects important tips on early planning and guidelines for developing appropriate buildings. Park publications promoted modem materials for design, and during the early Park Service personnel could look at their own publications for guidance.

Park Practice Design, a joint publication of the Park Service and the National Conference on State Parks, featured a rustic wood museum building in but qualified its praise with the observation that it had "limited application because of its architectural character and the fact that it would be relatively expensive to construct." These issues were no longer applicable in when the publication emphasized the centralization of functions, circulation of visitors, and presence of modem utilities in visitor centers at Pipestone, George Washington Carver, and Everglades. Writing for the Park Service newsletter, Guidelines, Howard R. Stagner, chief of the Division of Natural History and a member of the original Mission 66 planning staff, compared visitor centers to modem businesses.

The overwhelming purpose was luring people inside. Stagner noted the absence of any standard plan for visitor centers, since each varied according to its reason for being. Taken out of context, the visitor center had no inherent value, but placed near a point of interest, it became indispensable to the curious park visitor. By museum professionals described how the visitor center allowed the Park Service to "orient the public according to its own objectives." This was achieved through what had already become a standard set of experiences: approaching the information desk, discovering one's location on a map, watching a narrated slide production, visiting the museum, taking in a view and then proceeding down the road to a major attraction.

50 During the last few years of Mission 66, both the EODC and the WODC experimented with visitor center plans that moved away from the centralized, single building model. The new designs were of two basic types--an entry lobby with distinct wings for other services and a 48 David D. Thompson, "Visitor Centers ... ", 4. 49 This design was conceptual and was never executed. 50 Howard R. Stagner, "Making the Visitor Center Work," Guidelines (National Park Service, November 75- 77; Charles W. Warner, "The Interpretation ofan Historic Area through the Original Environment and the Visitor Center," Guidelines (National Park Service, November QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 18 series of independent buildings grouped around a courtyard or terrace.

The visitor center and administration building at Saratoga, New York, designed by Don Benson and the EODC staff in are early examples of this effort to clarify services and the circulation between them. Offices are housed in a hut-like space adjacent to a similar form containing a lobby and roofed terraces. These six-sided "huts" are connected by a corridor to the assembly/museum area, which is similar in plan and outward appearance. The exterior walls of all three areas are covered with beveled wood siding and the six-sided pointed roofs are protected by hand-split wood shingles. Although the Salt Pond Visitor Center Cape Cod National Seashore, Massachusetts, was based on a different plan and aesthetic treatment, it also effectively dispersed services into three distinct areas.

EODC Architect Ben Biderman designed the visitor center with a central entrance lobby between an audio-visual room and museum. The elevation reads as three separate buildings, but the two wings are connected to the lobby with glassed-in corridors. In contrast to the Saratoga Visitor Center, Salt Pond emphasized the character of each area with distinctive roof designs and wall treatments. The WODC also began experimenting with alternatives to the centralized, single-building visitor center during the later years of the program. Cecil Doty produced a visitor center on the "three hut model" with pointed shake roofs for Curecanti Visitor Center in Colorado, but the building was completely redesigned by a contract architectural firm.

The reverse situation occurred at Cabrillo Visitor Center, San Diego, for which Doty chose a more centralized plan that contract architect Frank L. Hope reconfigured as three completely separate buildings in In this case, the administration building, exhibits/auditorium, and viewing/sales buildings were grouped around an open-air courtyard. Roughly contemporary with this design were the plans for the headquarters at Fort Raleigh, Cape Hatteras National Seashore and the Kalapana Visitor Center at Hawaii Volcanoes destroyed by a lava flow in The visitor center portion of Fort Raleigh was completely separate from the headquarters, a series of "pod-like" buildings. The Hawaiian structure featured an office building, comfort station, and exhibit room with attached lanai (porch).

Both of these buildings, and perhaps not coincidentally most of these later visitor centers, made extensive use of wood shingles, built-up roofs, and decorative wood siding. Although "classic" visitor centers were still designed in the late 1 this move toward decentralizing visitor services appears to have been both a response to visitor circulation issues and a reaction to a design trend that would appear in school buildings and other public facilities during the late and The Mission 66 visitor center combined old and new building programs and served as the centerpiece of a new era of planning for American national parks. The influence of the Mission 66 visitor center was profound.

New visitor centers (and the planning ideas and architectural style they implied) were used in the development or redevelopment of scores of state parks in the United States, as well as nascent national park systems in Europe, Africa, and elsewhere. The visitor center is still the core facility of park development programs for parks of various sizes and in various contexts all over the world. "Park Service Modern" The Mission 66-era visitor center also embodied a distinctive new architectural style that can be described as "Park Service Modem." By the late Park Service architects had become aware that American architecture was changing fundamentally, and that the situation had also QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 19 changed in the national parks.

Park Service Modem architecture responded to the new context of postwar social, demographic, and economic conditions. The new style was an integral part of a broader effort at the Park Service to reinvent the agency, and the national park system, for the postwar world. The new style was evident, above all, in the design of visitor centers. These showcase facilities exploited the functional advantages offered by postwar architectural theory and construction techniques. The larger, more complex programming of the visitor center encouraged Park Service architects to take advantage of free plans, flat roofs, and other established elements of modem design in order to create spaces in which larger numbers of visitors could circulate easily and locate essential services efficiently.

Such planning implied the use of concrete construction and prefabricated components, and was further complemented by unorthodox fenestration and other aspects of contemporary modem design. At the same time, Park Service Modem also built on some precedents of earlier rustic design, especially in the use of interior courtyards and plain facades, which Cecil Doty had used, for example, in Pueblo revival structures of the The architectural elevations of Park Service Modem visitor centers reflected a new approach to designing what was, after all, a new building type. Stripped of most overtly decorative or associative elements, the architects typically employed textured concrete with panels of stone veneer, painted steel columns, and flat roofs.

These were established formal elements of the modem idiom, but they also often allowed the sometimes large and complex buildings to maintain a low, horizontal profile that remained as unobtrusive as possible. Many visitor centers were sited on a slope, so that the public was presented with a single-story elevation, while the rear (service/administrative facade) dropped down to house two levels of offices. Stone and textured concrete could also take on earth tones that reduced visual contrast with landscape settings. The Park Service Modem style developed by the Park Service during the Mission 66 era was a distinctive new approach to park architecture. The style was quickly adopted and expanded upon by Park Service consultants, notably Mitchell/Giurgola and Neutra.

The Park Service Modem style soon had a widespread influence on park architecture not only in the United States, but internationally as well. Park Service Modem architecture also reinterpreted the long-standing commitment to "harmonize" architecture with park landscapes. The Park Service Rustic style had been essentially picturesque architecture that allowed buildings and other structures to be perceived as aesthetically harmonious elements of larger landscape compositions. The pseudo-vernacular imagery and rough-hewn materials of this style conformed with the artistic conventions of landscape gemes, and therefore constituted "appropriate" architectural elements in the perceived scene.

Rustic buildings harmonized with the site not just by being unobtrusive, but by being consistent with an aesthetic appreciation of the place. Park Service Modem buildings were no longer truly part of the park landscape, in this sense, since they were not sited or designed to be part of picturesque landscape compositions. But in many cases this meant that buildings could be sited in less sensitive areas, near park entrances or along main roads within the park. At times, the new, larger visitor centers could be even less obtrusive than rustic buildings often had been. Park Service Modem architecture, at its best, did "harmonize" with its setting, but in a new way.

Stripped of the ornamentation and associations of rustic design, Mission 66 development could be both more understated and more efficient. If the complex programs and extensive floor areas QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 20 of the new visitor centers had been designed in a rustic idiom, the buildings probably would have taken on the dimensions and appearance of major resort hotels. Park Service Modem offered a new approach that, when successful, provided more programmatic and functional space for less architectural presence. During the Mission 66 era, the Park Service Modem style (epitomized by the Mission 66 visitor center) led the way in establishing what was considered an appropriate approach to planning and designing the built environment in national and state parks.

The new, modem image became widespread, and was adopted by many different park and public land management agencies all over the United States. As the national park movement spread worldwide in the postwar era, visitor center planning and the Park Service Modem style were often exported as well. Mission 66 and Park Service Modem became as influential in shaping postwar park planning as the New Deal and Park Service Rustic had been between the wars.

The Quarry Visitor Center

Dinosaur and Echo Park Surrounded by the rocky terrain of northwest Colorado and northeast Utah, more than two hundred miles from any major city, Dinosaur National Monument is an unlikely location for one of the Park Service's most distinctive modernist buildings. Even before its completion in the "ultramodern" Quarry Visitor Center at Dinosaur had become a model of Mission 66 design and achievement. Its glass and steel observation deck, concrete ramp, and cylindrical "tower" suggested scientific inquiry, and literally sheltered working paleontologists. The transformation of the monument from a paleontological site to a visitor destination worthy of such attention resulted, in part, from one of the country's bitterest conservation battles.

The canyon near the confluence of the Green and Yampa Rivers was the preferred location for a Bureau of Reclamation dam, and had been eyed by the Bureau for inclusion in the Upper Colorado River Basin Project since the Legislation passed to expand the monument in included provisions for future development of water resources. What appeared to be a matter of local water rights in the late however, would become a topic of national discussion after World War IL If the value of Dinosaur National Monument lay in its paleontological site-the richest deposit of Jurassic remains ever discovered-its sudden notoriety came from the high canyon walls and rushing rivers that the river development project promised to transform into power, irrigation, and drinking water.

The dam controversy touched the heart of the National Park Service by threatening its basic mandate to protect individual parks and the integrity of the entire system. It pitted governmental departments against each other. Even within the Park Service, staff members stood on either side of the issue. The public was equally divided. This was an era in which big water projects, such as the Hoover Dam, were wonders of engineering constructed for public benefit. Many Westerners demanded "equal water rights," while members of the growing national "wilderness movement" saw the Echo Park Dam QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 21 development issue as an opportunity to prevent a loss equivalent to that of Yosemite's Hetch- Hetchy Valley.

51 The Echo Park and Split Mountain Dams appeared a foregone conclusion to many by when newly appointed Secretary of the Interior Oscar Chapman scheduled hearings to discuss the proposals. Among the monument's supporters was Frederick Law Olmsted, the nation's foremost landscape architect, who warned that the loss of "scenic and inspirational values obtainable by the public" at the monument would be "catastrophically great." 52 Olmsted urged the Department of the Interior to choose an alternative site, even if it resulted in financial loss. Despite such pleas, Chapman supported the dam.

The headline of the January 28 Salt Lake City Tribune read "Echo Park Dam Gets Approval." Less than a year later, the Park Service announced plans for a resort-like development at the new Echo Park and produced a sketch of Echo Park Lodge, a vast complex for 500 visitors estimated to cost Park Service maps indicated the areas that would be flooded and showed the locations of both Split Mountain and Echo Park Dams and reservoirs. 53 The Park Service may have given up the fight after the Secretary of the Interior's decision, but grassroots conservation groups refused to back down. Media attention had been building since the hearings, and in July an article by Bernard DeVoto informed more than four million of Harper's readers of a potential tragedy at Echo Park.

A native of Utah, DeVoto helped make the situation a popular issue, and once it reached a national forum new coalitions joined the conservationists. Californians protested that their water was being diverted, while Easterners declared themselves unwilling to pay taxes for western water projects. The campaign to save the canyon was given an additional boost in when David Brower became president of the Sierra Club. After seeing a film of the river, Brower made the preservation of Dinosaur his personal crusade. The new Sierra Club leader encouraged others to take up the fight by sponsoring river trips, producing his own film, and writing and speaking on behalf of the monument. Brower asked New York publisher Alfred A.

Knopf to publish This is Dinosaur, a collection of essays by notable wilderness advocates intended to show "what the people would be giving up" if they accepted the dams. 54 Each member of Congress was sent a copy of the book, with a special brochure about the monument sewn into the binding. 51 The Wilderness Society, the National Parks Association, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, the Izaak Walton League, the American Planning and Civic Association, the Wildlife Management Institute, the Audubon Society, and the National Council of State Garden Clubs were among the approximately thirty conservation groups involved in the Echo Park issue.

52 Frederick Law Olmsted, "Statement of Frederick Law Olmsted at Hearings Held by the Department of the Interior, April 3, in the Matter of Dinosaur National Monument, Echo Park, and Split Mt. Dams," library, Dinosaur National Monument; Olmsted's testimony was based on fieldwork relating to the water project. See "Dinosaur National Monument Region, Report of Progress, May 13, 53Vernal Express (February 15, ); "Dinosaur National Monument, Plan of Development as a National Monument by the National Park Service," "Dinosaur" clippings files, Western History Collection, Denver Public Library. 54 Knopf had recently visited Dinosaur to show support for the endangered area. Wallace Stegner, ed., This is Dinosaur: Echo Park Country and its Magic Rivers (New York: Alfred A.

Knopf, QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 22 Finally, in November Secretary of the Interior Douglas McKay announced that the Echo Park dam would be removed from the Upper Colorado River project. 55 In March, both Houses approved water storage at three sites: Flaming Gorge, Utah; Glen Canyon in Northern Arizona; and Navajo, New Mexico (the inclusion of Curecanti, Colorado, was contingent on further research). The threat of future development at Dinosaur remained, but for the present, the monument would be left alone. The Park Service quickly took advantage of this lull in the controversy to push for the long-awaited visitor center at the now nationally famous site. Mission 66 came to Dinosaur amid this clash of ideals.

The Park Service chose to construct a monumental modernist building that demonstrated its commitment to the "protection and use" of Dinosaur National Monument. 56 Early History In Earl Douglass discovered an amazing deposit of fossilized dinosaur bones in the remote and arid northeastern comer of Utah. Douglass, a paleontologist from the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh, established a camp at the site from which to begin excavating the valuable remains. Over the next few decades entire skeletons were removed and sent to museums throughout the country--approximately pounds of fossilized bones to the Carnegie alone.

These prodigious discoveries led President Woodrow Wilson to proclaim Dinosaur a national monument in About this time, Douglass envisioned a museum exhibit with "the skeletons which had been unearthed ... mounted in relief on one side of the paleontological hall of the museum in the position in which they had been found." 57 A few years later, he preferred "a stately edifice in which there should be assembled plaster-casts of the dinosaurs which we have extracted from the spot." 58 Finally, in Douglass wrote what might easily have been preliminary instructions for the architects of Quarry Visitor Center: The uncovered area should be housed to protect the specimens and provide shelter for sight-seers and students.

The north side would be a natural wall, of course, with the skeletons in place. The south side would probably be a natural wall also but the ends would have to be built and a roof with ample sky lights would cover the whole. The extra 55 Owen Stratton and Phillip Sirotkin, The Echo Park Controversy (Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 95. 56 According to the Vernal Express, June 3, 195 8, the structure came "partly as a result of increased national interest in the monument, growing from the publicity inherent to the Echo Park Controversy Historian Elmo Richardson provides evidence that once the Upper Colorado Basin bill passed, the Secretary of the Interior planned immediate Mission 66 improvements at Dinosaur.

See Richardson, "Just a Tiny Dinosaur," in Dams, Parks and Politics (Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 57 Beidleman, Richard G, "The Dinosaur Museum--From Idea to Reality," in Administrative History Dinosaur National Monument, unpublished manuscript, library, Denver Service Center The quotation was taken from Douglass' correspondence. 58 Beidleman, "The Dinosaur Museum," 4; "correspondence," Holland to Cammerer, November 8, National Archives, File Dinosaur National Monument archives. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 23 space and the walls could be utilized for many other exhibits from this most interesting geological and paleontological region.

59 If Douglass was the driving force behind the visitor center concept, public servants in higher places had more influence over construction within the monument. George Otis Smith, Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, expressed his preference for an in situ exhibit as early as and by Secretary of the Interior Herbert Work imagined a similar situation and encouraged the Smithsonian to take on the project. Evidently, local residents believed that a building at the Quarry was eminent. The board of the Vernal Chamber of Commerce estimated that a shelter featuring a roof with three skylights and end walls of native rock would cost about Although Work was unable to obtain approval for his scheme, he did attract the attention of Director Cammerer and members of the scientific community.

Cammerer expressed concern over the amount of labor necessary to reveal exhibit bones and feared incurring additional expenses. Nevertheless, in Congressman Colton of Vernal introduced Bill to the Congress in an effort "to properly house for its protection the Dinosaur National Monument."60 Congress shelved the bill, but Colton continued to fight for a protective shelter. Meanwhile, Cammerer focused on finding an academic institution to resume excavations in partnership with the park. Dr. Case of the University of Michigan Geology Museum, a group active in excavating the site, hesitated to reveal fossils that might deteriorate when exposed to the elements.

Financial support was a problem for the university as well, and in Cammerer decided to halt excavation until something could be done to protect the bones. Finally, in the American Museum of Natural History in New York bargained with the Park Service for rights to fossilized remains in exchange for developing a public exhibit. Museum excavators would be allowed to remove any full skeletons they unearthed. The Depression ended hopes of building a museum in the early However, a federal relief project resuscitated the excavation efforts in promising twenty workers. Even after the removal of funding in the spring of the next year, work continued under the Transient Relief Service of Utah.

A temporary structure for the paleontologists, which also served as a museum, was constructed on the site in 61 The relief work primarily involved "overburden removal," but as this task was accomplished the Park Service began planning for a new museum. Ned J. Bums, chief of the museum division, warned that "the building must be erected as soon as possible after this work has advanced to a stage where the fossils are located and enough exposed for identification." Not only did Bums anticipate potentially damaging water seepage, but also several features of the building. He thought the structure housing the in situ exhibit should be "entirely functional with ornamental treatment reduced to a minimum." The balcony opposite the rock's face would allow visitors to observe excavation.

In closing, Bums noted that "an in situ exhibit of the size contemplated will . 59 Beidleman, "The Dinosaur Museum," 9; "correspondence," Cammerer to Case, December 30, National Archives, File Dinosaur National Monument archives. 60 Beidleman, "The Dinosaur Museum." 61 Beidleman, "The Dinosaur Quarry and Federal Works Projects QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 24 .. achieve international fame," but warned the Park Service to obtain the necessary funds before beginning construction. 62 Bums may have been referring to a preliminary design for a museum produced in January and, remarkably, the early proposal most similar to the Quarry Visitor Center.

The project assumed collaboration with the American Museum of Natural History, the chief architect of WODC, and the director of the Park Service. Unlike successive designs of the this scheme contains a circular foyer, apparently of concrete, which acts as a hinge linking the Quarry exhibit area with an optional office wing. The narrow museum building includes a library and curatorial office on the first floor, and stairs adjacent the foyer and at the far end of the museum lead up to a second-floor balcony space, enabling visitors to circulate without backtracking. In elevation, the building is simple and streamlined, with only a random stone facade as ornamentation.

Its strip clerestory windows, flat roofs, and use of geometric forms is more characteristic of Mission 66 than the rustic architecture typical of the Park Service in the 63 Interest in the Quarry area appears to have increased in probably because the enlargement of the monument from eighty acres to three hundred and twenty-five square miles brought attention and financial support to the area. 64 Signs were installed on Route 40. In his inspection of the monument, Assistant Chief of the Naturalist Division H. E. Rothrock reported on the prospect of further excavation in the quarry: "This work cannot be undertaken until the plans and the exact location of the building which is to house the exhibit have been completed.

These plans await the excavation of the fossil bed because the location of the building and its general design will depend upon the location, condition, and abundance of the fossil material which exists in the bone layer." 65 If funding for the building had been an obstacle in the past, it must have seemed impossible during World War II. Nevertheless, in April the Park Service produced two alternatives for museums in the Quarry area. The preliminary sketch for a museum, designated 3-B as if in relation to the proposal, shows a more elaborate facility with a less modern appearance. The main exhibit room is a 60- by 160-foot rectangle composed of an in situ exhibit on the north side and exhibit cases or dioramas on the south underneath a second-story viewing balcony.

Visitors traversed a winding path up the rock (and adjacent the road) to reach the main entrance to the building, entered a lobby with restrooms, viewed the quarry face, walked downstairs to the exhibit room, and then exited through a vaulted loggia on the first floor which also served as a truck entrance. The laboratory and preparation room was located in a one-story side wing jutting out from the front 62 Ned J. Bums, "Comments on Proposed Museum at Dinosaur National Monument," in "Quarry Development1936-1953," ca. Dinosaur archives. 63 "Preliminary Drawing for Museum Building," January 24, DIN-3-A, microfiche, Technical Information Center, Denver Service Center. 64 President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the proclamation enlarging the park boundaries on July 14, 65 H. E.

Rothrock, "Report on Inspection of Dinosaur National Monument," June microfiche, TIC, QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 25 of the building, and additional offices were on the second floor of part of this wing. The building had a random stone facade and terraces but no significant ornament. 66 A third museum proposal (drawing wedged the building between the in situ quarry and the southern canyon wall, with a slightly undulating stairway providing access to the exhibit room, a second-floor mezzanine, and third-floor balcony. Offices were on the south side of the building and on the second floor. An optional skylight was included in the section, along with triple- height side windows.

The general plan of the building qualifies it as an ancestor of the future Quarry Visitor Center, as does the basic circulation pattern. A quick glance at the elevation ends the comparison, however, as it is a massive three-tiered structure with vaguely Spanish details. One feature of note is the boulder-lined path that follows the entrance road up to the second-floor roof terrace. Fortunately, the Park Service's financial situation did not lend itself to such an elaborate Quarry complex. 67 A temporary shelter was more realistic, and by plans were approved for a utilitarian structure resembling a warehouse or farm building. The north wall of the building consisted of the quarry face itself and a corrugated sheet metal shed roof protected paleontologists and visitors alike.

Four equally spaced windows in the south wall above the entrance and one on the east side let light into the museum. The lowest construction bid was offered by Bus Hatch, a native Vernal "river man" who had guided boatloads of tourists through the canyons during the preservation effort. 68 Although a rather primitive wooden structure, this early museum was a precedent in situ shelter serving the required protective function. The new Quarry Visitor Center would not only borrow its method of bringing the site to the visitor, but also its utilitarian quality updated to showcase modern materials and modern scientific efforts. Whether or not the contract architects examined the temporary shelter is unknown, but Park Service designers were certainly influenced by the building.

Mission 66 brought new hope of fulfilling promises for the Quarry area development envisioned twenty years earlier. Park staff met with members of the regional office and the WODC for three days in May to discuss upcoming construction projects.

The group agreed to push for 66 Preliminary Sketch, "Museum," February 7, DIN-3-B, microfiche, TIC, This drawing includes the following note: "This preliminary sketch is designed to the approximate dimensional specifications outlined in Associate Park Naturalist Walker's 'Report on Studies and Investigations at Dinosaur national Monument relative to an interpretive and museum development program,' dated May 2 to June 15, 67 The park brochure, "Dinosaur National Monument Past and Present," informed visitors of the Park Service's "high hopes and plans that this world-famous quarry may be protected from weathering and erosion by erecting a roof over it. Such a structure will make it possible to preserve bones now exposed in the quarry face and also house some dinosaur restorations.

But above all it will make it possible to present to the public an active, working quarry where men are engaged in uncovering and preserving in place the fossil remains of these great prehistoric creatures." William Lee Stokes, Dinosaur National Monument: Past and Present (Washington, Government Printing Office, 68 Dinosaur National Monument files, memorandum, "Temporary Quarry Shelter," April 17, QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 26 immediate preparation of preliminary drawings for the "Quarry Museum" and construction as soon as funds were available. Among those attending the meeting were Lyle E. Bennett and Robert G.

Hall, both of whom probably contributed their design expertise to the committee's building description: The building is to be designed with a length of approximately 180 feet, covering a general area of the quarry as located on the ground. The building is to have a balcony on the south wall at a height which will give the visitor the best possible view of the quarry face and the in situ exhibit. Entrance and normal visitor exit of the building would be at the balcony level near the center of the south wall. The circulation pattern within the building is to provide for visitors traveling from the balcony to the ground floor for a closer view of the in situ exhibit and other related exhibits planned for installation under the balcony and elsewhere in the building.

69 By March the Park Service announced that funds allocated for Mission 66 improvements at Dinosaur totaled 70 According to Director Wirth, the money would be used for roads, a new visitor center, employee housing, and water and sewer facilities. 71 In May, just a month before hiring contract architects, the park produced a "comment sketch" for a modem visitor center. 72 This drawing shows a two-story building with an upstairs lobby and spectator's balcony. The lower floor housed offices and work rooms arranged en suite and a visitor gallery, probably intended for exhibits. Visitor access to the building was from a broad stairway running parallel to the offices. No comments or elevations were included in the sketch.

At this point, the park must have been seeking a private architectural firm for help in designing the building. By midsummer, work had begun on a guard rail at Harper's Comer, parking lots, and concrete channel crossings. Bidding began on water and sewage improvements and grading the residential housing in the quarry area. 73 Over the winter, Park Naturalist John Good envisioned the improved situation at the site, which would allow visitors to "whisk up a paved road to the quarry instead of walking up the hot, dusty trail that has been used for so many years." 74 69 Regional Director to Superintendent, memorandum, "Report on Conference, May 18, 19, 20, Dinosaur National Monument" [stamped date June 9, Box #7, Office Files of Director Conrad L. Wirth, RG 79, National Archives.

70 '"Dinosaur' Improvement Fund Reaches Vernal Express (March 1, 71 The eight projects included in the program were "the reliefing of fossils, construction ofroads and parking lots for the visitor center, reconstruction of Split Mountain road, installation of utilities, roads and walks for utility buildings, signs and markers," and campground and comfort facilities along the Green and Yampa Rivers. "Dinosaur Monument Construction Draws Big Response at Bid Opening," Vernal Express (March 21, Dinosaur clippings file. 72 See photo collection, "Quarry," Dinosaur archives.

73 "Dinosaur National Monument Quarry Development Now Open for Bidding," Vernal Express, July 12, 74John Good, Visit Dinosaur Monument during Past Year, Says Report," Vernal Express (December 20, QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 27 In preparation for the new building, the Park Service removed facilities constructed during the The museum section of the old headquarters was "cut from the naturalist's quarters portion and skidded across a narrow bridge and placed at its new location about a mile from its original site," an achievement "deemed impossible." 75 The park went to great lengths to replicate the quarry exhibit by installing a temporary contact station at Neilson Draw and building a trail up to "in situ" interpretation at Dinosaur Ledge.

Fossilized backbones and large leg bones were exposed in the ledge area, and a ranger naturalist stationed at the site simulated excavation. 76 Throughout the construction, park personnel and local boosters described every step of progress "in anticipation of a visitor center "distinctly different in design from anything at present constructed in other national parks." Park interpreters were optimistic that the new facility would finally provide an appropriate setting for modern paleontological research. For the next several years, visitors would witness actual excavation by professional paleontologists.

This demonstration would be supplemented by a series of "exhibits, explaining what dinosaurs are, the world they lived in, the geological events following their death, discovery and working the quarry, and methods of preparing specimens." The visitor center would include laboratory facilities, such as a "preparation room for work on the bones, a technical library, storage space for study of collections, and a fully equipped darkroom." 77 Anshen and Allen, Architects The year Echo Park was saved the San Francisco architectural firm of Anshen and Allen designed the firm's most famous building, a small chapel in the Sedona desert. S.

Robert Anshen and William Stephen Allen began private practice together in San Francisco about four years after their graduation from college in 78 Former classmates at the University of Pennsylvania, Anshen and Allen worked as a team, sharing the responsibilities of design and engineering. From the beginning, Anshen and Allen espoused no particular style or architectural methodology, but prided themselves on creating the "variety" that evolved naturally out of clients' desires and programmatic requirements.

One of the partners' notable early buildings was a house designed in Taxco, Mexico, for Sonya Silverstone An article about the residence inspired Marguerite Brunswig Staude to contact Anshen and Allen about the possibility of building her dream chapel in Sedona, 75 Daily Yellow Correspondence, Superintendent's report, May 9, Dinosaur archives. 76 Jess H. Lombard, superintendent, to Mr. Martin Litton, Travel Editor, Sunset (October 3, 77 "Master Plan Development Outline," ca. December, filed in Daily Yellow Correspondence, Dinosaur archives. 78 After graduation, Anshen and Allen were awarded a traveling fellowship abroad and, several years later, arrived in San Francisco nearly penniless.

The young architects heard that Ralph Davies, Director of the Standard Oil Company, was eager to have a European residence dismantled and brought back to California. They convinced Davies to abandon the European plan and hire them to design his home in Woodside, California. The Davies commission led to work on Standard Oil stations and ship interiors for an associated business, American President Lines. Telephone interview with Richard Hem by the author, April 1, QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 28 Arizona. 79 The architects must have been intrigued when Staude, a sculptress, showed them her sketches of a Roman Catholic Church inspired by Rockefeller Center, a version of which was almost constructed for Hungarian nuns on Mount Ghelert in Budapest.

Anshen and Allen began working on the chapel project beginning in 80 Staude not only financed the chapel, but also provided accommodations for the architects at her Doodlebug Ranch in Sedona. When it was time to find an appropriate site, Staude, her husband, and the architects flew over the local hills in search of the perfect location. This type of collaboration between architect and client would also occur in the firm's work for the National Park Service. The Chapel of the Holy Cross, a concrete and glass structure designed around a colossal cross, was built into dramatic red rock formations overlooking the town of Sedona. A serpentine concrete ramp leads the visitor out of the parking area and up to a courtyard in front of the chapel.

Through the paned-glass entrance facade, the view extends to the concrete cross spanning the building's opposite wall and to clouds outside that seem to float above the altar. Anshen and Allen's chapel received praise in architectural journals, popular magazines, and newspapers soon after its construction. 81 Park Service architects must have known about this unusual structure located a short distance from Montezuma Castle National Monument and other national monuments near Flagstaff. The chapel's textured concrete walls and sinuous ramp would foreshadow a similar use of concrete at Quarry Visitor Center. The glass wall that so successfully brought the outdoors into the building would be adapted to the conditions of the park site.

Perhaps most important, the designs of both buildings would accommodate living rock. In its unadulterated simplicity, the chapel makes the most of modernist design, and Park Service architects might very well have hoped to see its secular equivalent in a national park. Architectural Record clearly saw the connection between the chapel's setting and the design challenges inherent in a park environment. The journal concluded its October story on the chapel with the following prediction: It may fall to the lot of other architects to work with sites of similar grandeur, if plans for the Mission 66 program of the National Park Service do lead, as planned, to a substantial building program in the national parks.

NPS and its concessioners in the parks will be dangling before architects just such problems in scale, in awesome scenery, color, lighting conditions. In an earlier day rusticity was the accepted answer, or chalet 79 Marguerite Brunswig Staude a sculptress, originally presented her idea for a 500-foot, block-wide cathedral to Lloyd Wright, Frank Lloyd Wright's son, in the Although the design was finally accepted by nuns in Hungary, World War II prevented construction. In Staude contacted Wright again with plans for a much smaller chapel, but the architect refused to proceed with any but the original design.

Kate Rutland Thome, "Upon This Rock, Marguerite Brunswig Staude and her Sedona Chapel," (West Sedona, Arizona: Chapel of the Holy Cross, 80 About this time Anshen and Allen were planning a major housing development in Palo Alto, California. Although originally named the Fairmeadows Tract, the residences came to be known as "Eichler Houses" after their patron, Joseph Eichler. 81 According to "Upon this Rock," a brochure purchased at the chapel, the building appeared in Life Magazine, The New York Times (August 25, and The Washington Post. It received an AIA award for religious structures in and was pictured in the September Architectural Record. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 29 importations from another mountainous land.

Contemporary architecture has not had much opportunity to test its tenets in such terrain, or, too much success when it has had the chance. The design of this chapel seems to suggest a better approach than we are used to in our national parks. 82 Regardless of the Park Service's admiration for the Sedona chapel, initial contact between architects and client appears to have occurred as a result of the Mission 66 effort to find suitable contract architects for visitor center commissions. The WODC advertised its need for architects and, about six months after Anshen and Allen interviewed at the San Francisco office, the firm was hired to design Quarry Visitor Center. The partners chose Richard Hem as project architect.

83 From the beginning, a certain amount of collaboration was implied, but Anshen and Allen welcomed the challenge offered by their unusual client. In accepting the project, the firm was assuming decades of in-house planning, not to mention the responsibility of an early high- profile Mission 66 project. Anshen and Allen soon realized that the Park Service's expectations for its new building were influenced by the traditional park museum model; preliminary Park Service designs depicted a fully enclosed, windowless building lit exclusively by artificial light. When Anshen visited the site, he recognized the importance of opening up the building so that people could see the environment surrounding the covered quarry section.

Together, Hem, Anshen, and Allen begin to plan an exhibit shelter as open as possible in order to achieve a maximum integrated relationship of the remains to the site. The shelter was conceived as a totally glazed structure. This conception had the additional advantage of creating the least intrusion of the building on its natural surroundings which had been one of the Park Service's principal requirements. The administrative and utility areas were to receive a subordinate location and treatment to the main exhibit shelter in order to detract as little as possible from the public's view from the site. Technical aspects of the design were addressed by Robert D. Dewell, a civil and structural engineer based in San Francisco.

84 According to project architect Hem, the original concept for the visitor center made use of the site's natural landscape features by spanning the "v-shaped cut" in rock formations with "a series of suspension cables on a catenary curve." 85 Because the region's severe climatic conditions fluctuated up to 150 degrees throughout the year, the architects were forced to abandon this plan. The new scheme evolved from the original idea, but supported the asymmetrical butterfly roof 82 Architectural Record, vol. no. 4, (October 83 Richard Hem graduated from the University of Oregon with a bachelor's of architecture in After working for a private company in San Francisco for eighteen months, Hem joined the firm of Anshen and Allen.

He specialized in passenger ship interiors for American President Lines, producing approximately twenty-six designs for marine projects during his career. Hem's early work also included designing the ramp for the Sedona chapel, the Quarry project, and the Food Machinery Corporation building in San Jose. After nine years with the Hem left for eight years and then returned for another fifteen years. He retired in Telephone interview by the author, April 1, 84 Richard Hem, "Design: Anshen & Allen, San Francisco, California," AJA Journal (December 85 Hem, "Design," QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 30 with a more substantial rigid frame system. This solution solved the basic requirement of covering the quarry face, but departed radically from the Park Service's shed-like design.

Quarry Visitor Center was an original design by Anshen and Allen, but it was also a collaborative effort with the National Park Service. In an oral history interview more than twenty years later, Cecil Doty not only took credit for the original design, but remembered details of the collaboration process. With drawings to illustrate his points, Doty showed how he revised the building plans "on the basis of my second preliminary [drawing]" after Ronnie Lee pressured him to remove all glass from the exhibit gallery and make provisions for artificial lighting. Doty claimed that Anshen and Allen restored the glass, borrowed his shell and truss design, and then "went high tailing to Washington" and got approval for the building.

As this controversy illustrates, work between private and Park Service architects often blurred the lines between client and architect. 86 In a feature article on "Recent Work of Anshen & Allen," Architectural Record described the building in glowing terms as a highly successful revision of "the Park Service's original design. " 87 The firm produced a seven-sheet set of preliminary drawings in July Because of the large amount of glass in the plans, preliminary drawings included diagrams indicating the angle of the sun at various months and hours. "Sun patterns" were shown in plan and cross section. These solar studies were directly related to building features, such as the shape and extent of roof overhangs.

The building consisted of three main areas: the concrete cylinder or "circular element" housing facilities for visitors, including the lobby, restrooms, and service staff; the one- story administrative office and laboratory wing; and the double-height gallery, which included the fossil exhibit. From the parking lot, visitors entered by following the concrete ramp as it wrapped around the cylindrical building and emerged in an area adjacent to the exhibit. The two floors were connected by a narrow stairway in the rotunda and by a stairway at the far end of the gallery; visitors were intended to use the ramp entrance, discover the restrooms to the left of a small lobby, walk along the upper gallery and then take the stairs down to the lower viewing area.

This gallery included a window into both the paleontologists' preparation and storage room and part of the administration wing. The first floor also housed the library and conference room, the geologist's office, darkroom, employee lockers, and mechanical equipment. Visitors concluded their tour of the lower gallery at another lobby space, now a crowded bookstore. Additional Park Service offices were arranged in the semicircle around the lobby. The exit was located at the far end of the exhibit space. This route provided efficient circulation through the building and back to the parking area. 86 See Harrison, "Interview with Cecil Doty," 17.

Doty repeated his claims in an interview with Jonathan Searle Monroe, who paraphrased the architect's comments in his master's thesis: "A more dramatic change occurred at the Dinosaur Quarry Visitor Center at Dinosaur National Monument. This early Mission 66 building was well received by the architectural press and gave Anshen & Allen, the designers, good publicity. The design concept, the overall size and functional relationships, the siting, and even some of the construction details were done by Doty. Anshen & Allen made changes to the roofline and altered the shape of an office wing from rectangular to round, both of which significantly changed the final form of the building but not the basic concept.

Doty's name was never mentioned in any of the numerous articles describing the building." See Monroe, "Architecture in the National Parks: Cecil Doty and Mission 87 "Recent Work of Anshen and Allen," Architectural Record 124 (September QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 31 Evidently, Director Wirth was not entirely pleased with the preliminary drawings and, in July, refused their approval. Anshen responded by offering to "restudy the problem in accordance" with Wirth's comments. 88 The acting chief of design and construction reported his extreme doubts that a building satisfying the desired functional requirements could be designed and built with the available funds.

As the architects worked on revisions over the next few months, they also demonstrated that their glass and steel building could be completed within the allotted budget. The form of the gallery covering the fossils appears to have been determined relatively early in the design process, but the cylindrical administrative building proved more contentious. The architects produced at least ten versions of the ramp and cylinder, with variations in the treatment of "skin" covering the two-story office space, the size and shape of the ramp and its termination. These are all drawn in soft pencil, with a similar background treatment, as if part of a series.

89 The most significant variations occur in the concrete pattern of the cylinder; the architects varied the spacing of verticals, in one case leaving half the wall completely smooth and in another proposing a textured wall of concrete block. Ramp possibilities ranged in the extent of curve-- including an example that seems almost level. The architects experimented with the ramp entrance and toyed with the idea of a series of steps part-way up the ramp. As Senior Associate of Anshen and Allen Stephen Bruneel speculated in the drawings suggest that "the final round form of the admin/service wing was arrived at early on, but that there was uncertainty or resistance either within the firm or with the client.

The result causing a long detour before the original scheme was returned to." 90 This "resistance" was most likely directed at the building's function, rather than its modernist aesthetic, and resulted primarily from the museum department's desire for traditional, enclosed exhibits. Ronald Lee's Division of Interpretation preferred the use of artificial lighting in the visitor center, and his influence was a determining factor in early in-house conceptions of the building. An enclosed, darkened exhibition space would allow museum technicians to employ dramatic lighting affects without any external distractions, create a sense of mystery, and propel visitors back to the time of the dinosaurs.

However tempting such a performance might have been for the museum division, this traditional approach to exhibition defeated the purpose of a site specific exhibit. Visitors could not see the relationship between the enclosed part of the quarry and the continuing rock face outside. As Hem subsequently explained, "the Park Service design, while being suited to the normal concepts of museum planning, was failing to recognize the unique aspects of this particular project."91 By August when Anshen and Allen had 88 Acting Chief Division of Design and Construction to Director, memorandum, "Monthly Narrative Report, July1956," Box #7, Office Files of Director Conrad L. Wirth, National Archives.

89 According to Steven Bruneel, Senior Associate of Anshen and Allen, "the shed is usually part of the sepia background with just the admin/service wing drawn in by hand." Steven Bruneel to Christopher Jones, February 11, No dates or title blocks are included on the drawings, but one alternative (later rejected) is signed by Tom Vint. 90 Bruneel to Jones, February 11, 91 Hem, "Design," QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 32 already submitted the first sketches of their glass-walled building, members of the museum and park staff had not only changed their minds about the display technique but were arguing for a building "as light and open as possible ...

with glass ends." Although such a design was part of the Mission 66 planners' early concept, the museum branch's preferences had influenced preliminary planning and was responsible for the alterations that so disappointed Cecil Doty. 92 Despite strong approval from the WODC, Anshen and Allen's design had undergone revisions since its preliminary stage, and the architects were required to re-submit their plans to the park superintendent, regional office, museum branch, and Washington office. As Hem recalls, Director Wirth was tom between the opinion of the museum experts and that of the WODC.

Wirth scheduled a design presentation in the San Francisco office, and after hearing the strong support of the Park Service architects firsthand, he accepted their consensus even though the working drawings submitted in November displayed no significant changes. The cylindrical element featured a pattern of vertical lines made by alternating strips of insulated glass, concrete panels and areas of concrete masonry. 93 Its composition roof was topped with a plastic skylight. But the highlight of the design was certainly the massive glass wall on either end of the building. More than the butterfly roof or concrete ramp, the extensive use of glass and steel created an atmosphere suggestive of modem innovation. Porcelain enamel sandwich panels were installed near the base of these walls.

The drawings also included plans for the traveling scaffold that was to be part of the working exhibit. The air conditioning and radiant heating systems were handled by Earl and Gropp, electrical and mechanical engineers based in San Francisco. The "finish and color schedule" for the visitor center paints a colorful picture of the building's original interior surfaces. The visitor gallery walls and trim were surf green and the ceiling vernal green. The lobby was surf green with varnished birch trim, and the rotunda and stairway were also green. Offices had walls painted starlight blue and honey beige. Less significant spaces, such as corridors, vestibules, and storage spaces were tusk ivory.

These brightly painted surfaces were intended to relieve the monotony of the valley's gray surroundings and, perhaps, create the effect of an oasis in the desert. A similar effort would be made at the new facility in Petrified Forest National Park a few years later. 94 During planning for the visitor center, the architectural firm was also busy with designs for employee housing and a utility building in the quarry area below the visitor facility. In June Hem drafted plans for the site, showing three residences and a four-unit apartment arranged in a small cul-de-sac of the road leading to the maintenance area. The buildings were 92 Museum Specialist Robert L.

Barrel to Chief, Museum Branch, memorandum, "Method of Displaying Quarry Face, Dinosaur August 5, "Dinosaur" files, National Park Service History Collection, Harpers Ferry Center. 93 Although Anshen and Allen stipulated colored concrete for the exterior of the building, the Park Service used local aggregate without added coloring. According to Richard Hem, the color that naturally resulted from the native stone was exactly what the architects had chosen. Richard Hem, Interview by the author, April 1, 94 Anshen and Allen, "Finish and Color Schedule," ca. Nov., archives of Anshen and Allen, San Francisco. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 33 one-story, and the pitched roofs covered with asbestos shingles.

A redwood fascia encircling the building under the roof line provided a decorative touch. Floors were specified as slabs covered in asphalt tile and sidewalks and patios were of colored exposed aggregate concrete. Various drawings indicate that Park Service architects helped with this typical Mission 66 housing. 95 The concrete block utility building included areas for carpentry, auto maintenance, and equipment storage. 96 Building the Visitor Center The park sent out invitations for bids on construction of the visitor center in early February and by the closing date of March 19, had received multiple offers. 97 On April 23 the Department of the Interior issued a press release announcing that R. K.

McCullough Construction Company of Salt Lake City would build the building, which promised to be "distinctly different from those in other national park areas." In the second week of May, Park Service Project Supervisor R. Neil Grunigen reported that the McCullough Company was "erecting a field office, staking out the building and removing the old quarry structure." Excavation for the employee housing near the quarry was complete and contractors were beginning the concrete form work. Grunigen shared his reports with Superintendent Lombard and both consulted Lyle Bennett, WODC supervisory architect, on issues requiring official approval.

98 After a month of work, the superintendent complained of slow progress (only 15% of the site had been excavated) and the McCullough Company demanded a meeting with the architects. According to construction representative Lee Starke, delay in the delivery of structural steel resulted in early setbacks, as did waiting for Anshen and Allen to select colors for the block and concrete. By June, the contractors had excavated footings in preparation for beginning "forming and concrete work." 99 R. K. McCullough's superintendent, Duard Davis, had already requested an extension of time because revised drawings for the foundations had not been approved, delaying the order of structural steel.

In the meantime, a local V emal firm, Intermountain Concrete Company, began work on a contract for Quarry area "roads and parking areas, bridge, base course, colored concrete and curb and gutter, timber guard rail, overlook and walk." Despite the slow start, Superintendent Lombard reported much progress that fall. The foundation wall was in place and exterior concrete "treated with acid to create a 'pebble' effect to blend with the rocky background." 100 Newspaper accounts reported details of the building's concrete 95 See, for example, "3 Bedroom Residence, Quarry Area," Drawing #31 July 27, TIC. 96 "Utility Building, Quarry Site," drawing #3114A, November21, and April 29, TIC.

97 Hanson Construction Company of Altamont submitted the lowest bid of$224,000, but was allowed to withdraw after recognizing the insufficiency of its estimate. 98 R. Neil Grunigen, Project Supervisor, to Chief, WODC, "Weekly Construction Report," May 13, 99 Grunigen to Chief, WODC, "Weekly Construction Report," June 24, ' 00 "Rising Visitor Center Revives Dinosaur Era," Vernal Express, September 26, QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 34 construction--its glass walls with customized sun filters, and the fourteen-foot ramp wrapping around the side of the tower. By November, the structural steel framework had been erected and steel window sashes installed. Anshen and Allen selected "Mirawal's royal blue no. as the color for the porcelain panels on the east elevation.

Without its glass, the roof appeared a delicate steel cage. As winter approached, the "roof sheathing was on all the roofs and the built-up roofing applied on the circular element and low-wing areas." 101 Park Naturalist John Good reported that the building shell was "truly a massive thing." 102 In the month of December work shifted to the interior of the building, as contractors prepared to install wall coverings. In his "narrative statement" on the building construction, Lee Starke mentioned the excellent relationship between the job superintendent and the contractor, who actually altered problematic aspects of the building without charging the government.

A Mission 66 progress report written in March described the "exemplary accomplishment," emphasizing such technical details as the "Dusklite glass" panel walls of the exhibition hall that would "eliminate the reflection of the summer sun from the adjacent hills." 103 Quarry Visitor Center was completed on May 9, Along with the upcoming dedication of the building came news that Dinosaur might become a national park; coincidentally, the bill to achieve such status was part of the proposed Sputnik bill.104 The official dedication of Quarry Visitor Center, "Dinosaur Day," began at on June 1. Guests gathered as the Uintah High School band played a celebratory prelude. After Governor George D. Clyde and Superintendent Lombard welcomed guests, Dr.

LeRoy Kay, formerly of the Carnegie Museum, spoke about the natural history of the dinosaur quarry. Assistant Secretary of the Interior Roger C. Ernst delivered the dedicatory address. The ribbon cutting ceremony, a tour of the building, and a river boat trip followed. According to newspaper accounts, sixteen hundred people attended the event. During the dedication ceremony, the architects appear to have become displeased with the color of the porcelain enamel panels located between the lower level entrance door and the maintenance door on the east facade. They offered to replace the nine blue panels with clear glass.

Superintendent Lombard accepted the offer on the condition that the Park Service not incur additional expenses, but the firm was not willing to alter the building's aesthetics free of charge. The park eventually paid for this change. In a report to the regional director, Superintendent Lombard noted that the public reaction to the building had been "most favorable" and that the park staff was 'justly proud." 105 The building was featured on the cover of the July-August Geotimes, a magazine published by the American 101 Superintendent's monthly report, Jess H. Lombard, December Dinosaur archives. 102 John K. Good to Dr. A. S.

Coggeshall, December 6, 103 "Progress Report of Mission 66 at Dinosaur National Monument," National Park Service, March 7, 104 Dinosaur and Sputnik," Vernal Express (November 23, Dinosaur archives 105 Jess H. Lombard to Director, Region Two, "Report on Operation of Visitor Center," October 8, QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 35 Geological Institute. For this organization, the building was much more than a Mission 66 achievement. As "the only place in the world where visitors can see bones in the rock and watch paleontologists at work," the building was a landmark educational facility.

106 For the architects, the design brought "national recognition" and "opportunities that made them a leading California firm."1o"f In Situ Interpretation Considering the museum division's early role in the design of the building, it's not surprising that Anshen and Allen worked with the Western Museum Laboratory in San Francisco on exhibit plans throughout the visitor center. By design, the architecture of Quarry Visitor Center also involved museum interpretation; one wall of the building was an exhibit. The western exhibits planning team submitted its designs for the lobby installations on May 3, 108 The interior walls of the lower gallery were to be furred and faced with gypsum board in preparation for painting.

Exhibits were installed in recessed cases, shadow boxes and in diorama form. A year later, the architects submitted preliminary drawings for the exhibit installation, plans that were not immediately accepted by Superintendent Lombard. According to John W. Jenkins, chief of the Western Museum Laboratory, museum staff red-lined the architects' drawings with suggestions for spacing between panels to improve visitor circulation, and although Anshen and Allen approved the changes, work on construction drawings awaited further discussion with the superintendent. Jenkins supported the firm's basic concept and praised the "excellent and very attractive plan...

which would differ from most of the recent National Park Service installations." In the meantime, Jenkins realized that the installation plan could not be completed in time for the dedication ceremony and agreed to supervise completion of a temporary exhibit. The architectural firm was also eager to submit its drawings for carpet-covered wooden benches and cubes for seating in the upper and lower levels." 109 The architects' working drawings for the exhibition gallery were finally accepted by Ralph Lewis in October The excavation aspect of the quarry face exhibit would prove to be an ongoing project. It had actually begun in and, by geologists estimated another fifteen years of digging and scraping would be required to complete their work.

The permanent monument staff included museum technicians and a museum geologist to carry out the excavation. Although fossils 106 "Dinosaurs Meet the People," Geotimes, vol. 3, no. I (July-August 107 George E. Thomas, The Book of the School: JOO Years (Philadelphia: The Graduate School of Fine Arts of the University of Pennsylvania, Even before the construction of Quarry Visitor Center, some critics grouped Anshen andAllen among the significant firms of the future. Architectural Forum predicted that the "names of Charles Goodman andAnshen and Allen and Quincy Jones and Fred Emmons and Carl Koch and Keyes, Satterless and Smith may have a place in future history as pioneers only a little less revolutionary than Frank Lloyd Wright." See Architectural Forum, ed., Building US.A.

(New York: McGraw-Hill, 8. 108 "Exhibit Plan--Dinosaur Nat'l Monument Visitor Center," May 3, microfiche drawings, TIC. 109 John W. Jenkins to Director, "Exhibit Plans, Dinosaur National Monument," May 6, in 'Dinosaur Interpretive Plans," vol. I, Dinosaur archives. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 36 were removed from this area, a primary goal of the excavation was to prepare the north wall of the visitor center for public viewing.

This by 35-foot area, which formed a rock wall at a 67-degree angle, required "quarrying away the sterile rock, working the bone out in relief, and cleaning the surface with hand tools, and treatment of the fossil bone with a preservative." 110 Although paleontologists no longer chipped away at the rock by this writing in their tools remained behind as part of the current exhibit. At this time, the museum includes original exhibit panels and displays as well as more recent additions, such as a panel in front of the building describing the structure's architectural significance. Structural Problems The scenery at Dinosaur National Monument includes colorful mineral deposits, valleys revealing strata millions of years old, and fantastic shapes carved into solid rock by centuries of erosion.

For Mission 66 designers who might have become jaded by this environment, geological power made its presence known in the form of bentonite deposits underneath the visitor center. When exposed to water, bentonite sprang into action, expanding at a force strong enough to move steel girders. Even before the building was completed, the Park Service observed damage to the parking area. Radiating cracks were first observed and reported by Construction Foreman Davis in November 111 During the first year the building was open to the public, the park staff felt an unsettling vibration in the upper gallery. Lyle Bennett advised performing a vibration test on the balcony slab by placing wooden posts at several points under the overhang.

According to Supervisor McCune Ott, who conducted the test, the vibration could only be corrected by installing a post at every beam, a solution unacceptable to the park. Since visitors weren't complaining about the vibration, however, no further action was taken. In WODC drew up plans for the reconstruction of the plaza area in an effort to improve the drainage system. These included details of the roof drains and a longitudinal section showing the "typical subsurface drain." At this time, the Park Service installed an aluminum handrail on the ramp and laid down a cobblestone and concrete slab around and under the ramp, which was extended slightly." 112 Despite these improvements, the plaza continued to be a problem.

In March the maintenance division regraded the ground on the north and south sides of the building, realigned the pavement slabs in the east plaza, installed steel pipeline for roof drainage, cut several French drains, and patched other problem areas. The next year, the San Francisco Planning and Service Center grappled with repairs to the visitor center building, which included replacing some of the existing footings with new twenty-foot-deep caissons. In addition, the Park 110 Project Construction Proposal, Theodore E. White and Harold J. Broderick, April Dinosaur archives. 111William H. Clemons, supervisory park ranger, to Chief Ranger, "Structural Damage to Quarry Visitor Center Parking Area," November 27, 112 "Reconstruction Visitor Center Plaza," drawing August 16, TIC.

QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 37 Service extended the lower level lobby, installed new handrails in the gallery, and replaced several of the fixed-sash windows on the east and west wall elevations with operable sashes." 113 The geological situation was not seriously analyzed until when the consulting firm, Dames and Moore, concluded that some of the subsurface stone contained moisture-sensitive bentonite shale, the volume of which could increase significantly as its moisture content increased. "The shale formation underlying the visitor center loses structural integrity when exposed to air or moisture," the consultants stated.

The company reminded the National Park Service that they had warned of the danger in when they had conducted "a somewhat limited foundation investigation.... In our original investigation, we emphasized that it would be necessary to protect the foundation soils from moisture infiltration. However, due to broken roof drainage lines, snow melt and possible leaking water and sewer lines, moisture protection to the soils adjacent to the foundation to the east end had been ineffective." The firm found that the most severe damage had occurred along the east wall; the foundation under a column on the east wall had risen several inches, causing the column to bow inward, which caused the column and the wall on the north to separate.

The consultants' evaluation indicated that if moisture was not prevented from reaching under the building, the movement would continue. 114 Eugene Mott, who had witnessed similar subterranean action at the Painted Desert Community, compiled a detailed description of the building's damaged areas after inspecting the structure in Mott's list included two pages of "widening floor tile joints," and cracks in walls and ceilings; the south wall may have settled two inches. Like his predecessors, Mott recommended removal of moisture in the foundation area as the park's highest priority. But while others blamed bentonite, Mott thought that the loose, sandy soil around the building was the most likely cause of problems.

According to his assessment, the "beautiful" building was "constructed properly"; it displayed solid workmanship and the design was "adequate for construction in a stable area." As far as the moisture problem, Mott had little advice but hoped to avoid a concrete border that would obliterate the landscaping around the building." 115 Twenty-five years later, a Park Service study reported that Quarry Visitor Center would have a very short lifespan if serious measures were not taken to solve drainage issues. Biannual reports on the water levels in the well holes and west manhole were requested. Even more recently, in Dinosaur was still "settling and moving," but the cause was determined as both bentonite and a subterranean fault.

After structural evaluation, a team of Park Service specialists advised "an overall plan to manage and stabilize" the building, preferably supervised by an architecture and engineering firm or the Denver Service Center. 116 113 "Repairs to Visitor Center," drawing #3330A (six sheets), September TIC. 114 Dames and Moore, "Report oflnvestigative Studies, Adverse Movement, Visitor Center Building, Dinosaur National Monument for the National Park Service," July 115 Gene Mott to Al Heubner, "Inspection of Headquarters Building at Dinosaur National Monument," May 9, 116A. Sayre Hutchison, CPSO Historical Architect, "Dinosaur National Monument Site Visit, May 1997,"Rocky Mountain Region archives. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO.

UT-138 page 38 Almost a decade later, the Denver Service Center initiated another detailed evaluation of the Quarry Visitor Center. It would be one of a series of studies undertaken by the Park Service in the as the agency sought to find a way to preserve its failing building. The DSC completed a Historic Structure Report in August finding that the building's structural problems resulted in large part from an improperly designed foundation. In truth, the Visitor Center had been founded on a shallow, reinforced concrete system-principally.spread footings-which bore directly on expansive bentonite soils. Ironically, most paleontologists realized that the quarry was situated on Morrison Formation shale, which was known to carry moisture-reactive bentonite.

Dames and Moore had conducted only a cursory examination of the subsoil conditions as the building was under design in 1956-four shallow pits within the building's footprint-but they warned about the need to protect foundation soils from moisture. Even so, neither the project architects nor the Park Service had called for additional subsoil testing. The resulting building and the many interior and exterior concrete slabs that rested directly on the ground weighed too little to resist the soil's moisture-related swelling. What the Denver Service Center architects discovered in was that the building had deteriorated considerably in the intervening years. "From a distance, the overall structure appears to be in very good condition.

However, upon closer inspection, there are numerous signs of structural displacement, cracks, wall and roof modifications, and glazing replacement." 117 The building's problems, both large and small, were legion. The structure had been configured as a rigid frame, which allowed the impressive open span over the fossil quarry but tended to transfer differential movement throughout the structural members without flexing. One thing led to another, with disastrous results. The upward lift of the soil that had forced interior slabs to heave upward as much as eight inches, in tum caused the upper viewing gallery, which cantilevers from the interior walls, to drop by as much as twelve inches.

The floor slabs in the laboratory areas and administrative wing moved almost continuously, placing compressive strains on interior frame walls that had not been designed to carry loads. Some of these walls near the labs extended vertically from the floor slab to the steel roof beams. The additional forces from the lifting slab tended to crush these walls, causing them to buckle and warp, which cracked the drywall sheathing and broke the anchorages for the roof and gallery support beams. The heaving walls in tum lifted the roof beams, causing compression in the south glazed curtain wall of the exhibit shelter.

Because the original metal window frames had been welded directly to the support members in an effort to minimize their visual impact, they moved with the members, without the ability to flex and relieve strain on the glass. The window panes, constructed of non-tempered float glass, were unable resist stress adequately. The result was stress cracking on the glass panels, with windows breaking and shards of glass scattering through the public areas. 118 The cylindrical-shaped administration wing incurred motion-related problems of its own. The shallow footings under the curved exterior walls shifted with the shale, distorting the structure's 117 U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, "Quarry Visitor Center: Dinosaur National Monument, Utah/Colorado-Historic Structures Report," August 50. us Ibid. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 39 roof from a circular shape into more of an ellipse. The exterior masonry walls were cracking; the frame interior walls were bowing; window casings were displaced; drywall was splitting. Fractures also developed in the side walls of the circular exterior ramp at each pier support, indicating movement in the supports. Moreover, the ramp separated from the building in several places.

The DSC Historic Structure Report summarized the Visitor Center's structural issues with a warning: Although the structural system is tenuously stable at present, un-checked deterioration of the distressed roof, floor deck, or a buckled interior wall may result in sudden redistribution of loads and a chain reaction of material failures. At a minimum, this condition aggravates the ability of the park maintenance staff to seal the building from infiltration by air or vermin. While currently not a life-safety hazard (we are reasonably sure), future movements or distress could indicate the beginning of a rapid sequence of damage that could ultimately require closing the area to the public.

The operation of the building currently requires any new or significant progressive damage in the walls or ceilings of the administration area be immediately reported to a building professional for safety evaluation. 119 The Quarry Visitor Center suffered from a variety of other deficiencies as well, many of which were the result of the differential movement of the foundations. The roof of the exhibit shelter leaked, and the drains that did work connected to a single downpipe, which drained into the park's sanitary sewer system. In a heavy rainstorm, the system could be easily overwhelmed; saturating the water-sensitive soil around the foundations, or it could flood the NPS sewage plant.

The building's numerous shifts created openings in the walls and foundations that allowed infestation by rodents and insects. Heaving, out-of-plumb floors made even simple tasks such as walking or sitting at a desk problematic. The toilets were so out of level that effluent sometimes washed onto the floor during flushing. The building had only a single code-compliant exit for both staff and visitors. Only the first floor was accessible to handicapped occupants, and the public restroom facilities were located on the second floor. The serpentine exterior ramp around the administration wing gave the illusion of providing handicap access to the upper level but in fact was too steep and lacked sufficient landings to be code-compliant.

Windows in the rigid frames of the exhibit shelter were susceptible to shattering; the original double-leaf doorway on the south wing had warped so badly that it was replaced by a single-leaf door set within the original frame. Many of the underground utility pipes were damaged by the heaving soil and had been repaired on a piecemeal basis. The heating, ventilating, air conditioning, plumbing and fire alarm systems were all inadequate. And lead paint, asbestos pipe insulation, and halon and radon gases were all present in the building.

In short, according to the DSC architects, the structure was in "an advanced state of structural distress and deficient in Life Safety Code compliance." 120 The Visitor Center's historic designation complicated any discussion of how best to correct the building's numerous structural problems. Regarded as one of the most architecturally significant structures from the Mission 66 program, Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton had 119 Denver Service Center, "Historic Structure Report," 5. 120 Ibid., l. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO.

UT-138 page 40 designated the Quarry Visitor Center a National Historic Landmark in January As a result, any proposed changes to the building needed to involve consultation with the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer in order to help minimize or mitigate any adverse changes to the landmark's historic and architectural character. As defined by the National Park Service Project Agreement dated December the ultimate treatment and use of the Quarry Visitor Center would be its stabilization and rehabilitation for continued use as a visitor center. After studying the various design alternatives, the DSC architects reluctantly resigned themselves to removing some of the major character-defining elements of the Quarry Visitor Center.

The south wing and administration wing could not be stabilized without extensively modifying, replacing or stabilizing their foundation systems. The structure's original design had been fundamentally flawed in its failure to account for the subsoil conditions, and the subsequent repairs had been ineffectual to counteract the structural and functional deficiencies that resulted from the heaving shale. "Due to the advanced nature of the structural failure," the architects concluded, "there is primarily only one recommended alternative for treatment: total replacement of the South and Administration wings. This will result in the reconstruction of both wings to their former appearance, reusing as many architectural features as possible.

In addition, the exhibit shelter is in need of rehabilitation and modification to complete the stabilization treatment." 121 Meanwhile, the structure's stability continued to decline. In December one of the south wing walls, between the staff workroom and the library, buckled, causing bookshelves to collapse. Additionally, shifting rail alignment rendered a gantry crane inoperable, making it difficult to maintain the fossil face unobtrusively. The loss of the gantry crane imposed a threat to the fragile fossil face, as workers were forced to climb on the quarry wall to perform necessary maintenance. Park Service staff working at the Quarry Visitor Center adjusted their work routines to accommodate the building's idiosyncrasies.

For instance, Park Paleontologist Daniel Chure improvised his workspace by building a large wooden platform to prevent his desk and chair from rolling across the laboratory's slanted floor. Chure composed an office procedure guide, which he posted outside the laboratory door, listing various employee safety issues and their mitigation. Though not a serious study, the guide provides an insight into conditions at the quarry. In addition to offering safety solutions to matters such as "the severe sloping of the floor [that] is disorienting and disrupts one's sense of balance," the guide mentions an incident in which the countertop along the north wall broke away from the wall and crashed to the floor.

122 Joe Bauman, writing for the Deseret News, cited uneven walking and standing surfaces as the cause of one or two joint injuries per year among the staff. The stated intent of the Historic Structure Report was not to provide a definitive solution to the Quarry Visitor Center's problems. Rather, it would provide "baseline information for future use in preparation of the final design program, future schematic design and construction documents." Engineering the rehabilitation treatment was taken up in a subsequent Structural Evaluation 121 Ibid.' I. 122Daniel Chure, "Unusual Safety Issues in the Day-to-Day Use of the Paleontology Office and Paleontology Library," unpublished, May QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO.

UT-138 page 41 Report, completed in November The recommendations made in this study centered mainly on stabilizing the building's foundation. In response to the report, the Park Service commissioned a formal observation program to monitor changes in the structure's status. The monitoring plan called for a series of observation trips that would take place between May and May The goal was to identify any developing stability and life safety issues that might expose building occupants to harm. In January the Park Service sponsored an Alternatives Workshop in Vernal to develop management and rehabilitation options for the Visitor Center.

Comprised of representatives of Dinosaur National Monument, the NPS Intermountain Regional Office, the Denver Service Center, the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and other key stakeholders, the group considered five alternatives for the building, ranging from full preservation to complete facility replacement. The first alternative involved preservation of the entire Visitor Center to its original appearance. Alternative #2 essentially followed the recommendation made in the Historic Structure Report-that is, restoring the Visitor Center to its appearance but removing and reconstructing the south and administration wings in their original configuration. Interior functions and divisions of space would be modified to meet the changed program.

Alternative #3 involved rehabilitation of the exhibit hall and demolition of the south and administration wings and the serpentine ramp, with a new addition built to accommodate lost space and tt) respond to changes of program for the building. In Alternative #4, the original exhibit hall would be retained and rehabilitated, the south and administration wings and the serpentine ramp would be demolished, and a small addition would be built to accommodate vertical circulation in the exhibit hall. A new building would be built at the existing Visitor Center Contact Station to accommodate functions from the demolished wings. The last alternative envisioned total demolition of the Visitor Center and construction of a new building at the site.

123 The five alternatives differed in the degree of impact they would have on the physical integrity of the Visitor Center-and their affect on its National Historic Landmark status. Under Alternative #1, the least obtrusive treatment, the building would retain its landmark status. Alternative #2 might allow it to remain a landmark, depending on consultation with SHPO. Given the substantial loss of historic fabric, however, the final three alternatives would cause the Visitor Center to forfeit its landmark designation. Using sketch studies rendered by Andrews & Anderson Architects of Golden, Colorado, to illustrate the options, the group reconvened two months later in Vernal for a "Value Workshop. Here they reviewed the five alternatives at greater length.

The consensus of the workshop held that the preferred treatment for the building was Alternative #3. While maintaining the "spirit" of the original building, the new construction and loss of character-defining historic elements involved in this option would mean that the Quarry Visitor Center would no longer be eligible as an 124 123 Andrews & Anderson, Architects, "Final Architectural Building Program: Pre-Design, Quarry Visitor's Center, Dinosaur National Monument," May 12. 124 Andrews & Anderson, "Final Architectural Building Program," 13. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 42 In May technicians from JVA Consulting Engineers of Boulder, Colorado, undertook the first inspection of the Visitor Center called for by the Structural Evaluation Report.

The team identified and documented several life safety hazards and serviceability issues. The Life-Safety Monitoring Report issued by NA that August divided the building into its component parts, cataloging the many structural failures (e.g., ceiling joist connection failure, displaced floor deck, failed mullion connection) found at each. Most of these had already been described in previous studies. But other new concerns, such as the diminishing structural integrity of the administration wing, were cause for increasing alarm. The engineers stated, "Preliminary calculations indicate the remaining lateral capacity may be inadequate to prevent collapse in a strong earthquake." 125 The news was taken seriously by the Monument Superintendent Mary Risser.

She determined that the NPS "couldn't expose the visiting public or our employees the risk posed by this building" and made the "extremely difficult decision" to close the Visitor Center to staff and visitors. She cited the inspection's findings as pivotal in her decision. 126 On July 12, the Park Service closed the Quarry Visitor Center. Disappointed travelers learned of the closure upon arrival at the park; Park Service employees received instructions to vacate the premises within forty-eight hours. 127 When the JVA team revisited the park in September, the engineers found only minor changes to the Visitor Center, and those, they allowed, were possibly due to miscalculated measurements during the first visit.

The team did note new minor problems that were "likely in existence, but unseen" the first time around. 128 The administration wing was still the area of greatest concern. The upper floor and ceiling were being compressed against the south wing, and some of the ceiling joist connections with the walls had failed. Based on the cracking and deformation the team had measured on the exterior masonry walls, they concluded that the second-floor framing was severely distressed and inadequate to brace the wall against lateral forces. The roof beams had been tied to the exterior walls by clip angles embedded in the masonry at alternate pilasters; many had pulled out by deformation of the walls. Most of the repairs recommended after the first visit had yet to be addressed.

Indeed, since the Park Service had begun studying the 125 JV A, Inc., "Dinosaur National Monument Quarry Visitor Center: Life-Safety Monitoring Report," August 4. The engineers.summarized the worsening problems with the administration wing: The Administration Wing (Rotunda) is the area of greatest concern. Our detailed inspection has identified some previously unknown conditions, specifically, the extent of displacement in a number of the perimeter pilasters and the lack of diaphragm attachment at the second floor and roof to the pilasters. Considering the extent of cracking in the perimeter pilasters and these recently identified conditions, we are concerned about the stability of the Rotunda in a seismic event.

Preliminary calculations indicate the remaining lateral capacity may be inadequate to prevent collapse in a strong earthquake. 126 Mary Risser, "Quarry VC at Dinosaur Closed for Structural Repairs," Inside 11 July 127 Daniel Chure, Personal interview, 14 July 128JVA, Inc., "Dinosaur National Monument Quarry Visitor Center: Life-Safety Monitoring Report," December 4. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 43 building following its landmark designation in little other than makeshift repairs had been undertaken, and those in direct response to urgent local needs (buckled walls, broken windows, etc.). No comprehensive attempt to address the underlying structural failures had been undertaken, and, given the breadth and severity of the problems, it seemed that none ever would.

Since it was the JVA team's understanding that the Park Service now contemplated demolition and replacement of certain components of the building rather than just the repair and rehabilitation of the existing structure, they declined to include a timeline for repairs in their report, issued in December Closure of the Visitor Center since they had last visited had greatly diminished many of the public safety issues (no one in the building to be endangered by flying glass or collapsing ceilings) but had not eliminated the incidental danger to people who happened to be in or around the building. The team listed several items as high priority and therefore current life-safety hazards to occupants in any of the three major wings.

In addition to the suggested repairs, the JVA engineers recommended that a seismic evaluation be conducted prior to re-opening the building. 129 The increasingly serious findings of the JVA investigations prompted the Park Service to reconsider its long-term treatment of the Visitor Center. It had already been decided to move the paleontological lab and storage warehouse to a new curatorial facility in Vernal, thus reducing a large part of the building's :functional program.

130 Rather than reconstruct the remaining parts of the building to continue its use as a full-fledged visitor center, as envisioned in Alternative #3 that the Alternatives Workshop developed the year before, the plan shifted to rehabilitate the exhibit hall with a reduced program as a display shelter for the fossil wall only. A new visitor center and park administration building would be constructed elsewhere, as stated in Alternative #4. In October the architectural design team from the Value Analysis/Choosing-By- Advantage Workshop, led by Andrews & Anderson, met with park officials to review this change in direction.

"Although the Visitor Center will now be located at the Lower Quarry Contact Station site," they stated in their resultant Conceptual Design Report in May "the goals of the project remain the same." 131 Using the revised building program, the architects developed four conceptual designs-rehabilitation of the historic structure; construction of a 129 JVA, "Life-Safety Monitoring Report," 4. 130 As early as September a bill had been introduced in Congress that would establish the Uintah Research and Curatorial Center, a remote facility intended to ease the burden on the Quarry Visitor Center, improve working and storage facilities and consolidate Dinosaur National Monument's public facilities.

The new facility would be situated on land donated by the National Park Service to the City of Vernal, adjacent to the existing Utah Field House of Natural History State National Monument Museum. An environmental assessment produced by the Park Service in cited insufficient workspace, hazardous conditions due to structural shifting of the building, invasion of vermin, and employee exposure to radon-emitting fossils among the reasons for building the new facility. The assessment concluded that it was needed "because a valuable National Park Service museum collection is being jeopardized." U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "Uintah Research and Curatorial Center Environmental Assessment," 131Andrews & Anderson, et al., "Dinosaur National Monument: Stabilize, Rehabilitate, or Replace Historic Visitor Center," May 5. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 44 new, vernacular-style quarry building; construction of a new dome with exposed structural members; and construction of a new fabric-roofed structure. These would be responsive to four design directions, respectively: "f:reservation, site history, the credo of Mission 66 architecture, and a 'light touch on the land' ." 1 2 The four conceptual designs made a diverse group. All had architectural merit.

With its retention of the original Mission 66 Exhibit Hall, Concept 1 hewed closest to historic preservation precepts. "The intent of this concept is to maintain the historic character and image established by the existing building," the architects stated. "The basic framework and large steel 'Y' structure would be maintained... This concept stabilizes the existing foundation and introduces a new curtain wall to accommodate future movement. The 'gallery' interpretive experience is maintained as is the major architectural component of the historic building." The second concept entailed demolition of the original exhibit hall and construction of a new glass- walled structure over the quarry face.

With its stepped roof and clerestory, the new structure would loosely replicate Earl Douglass' early century mining shelter, built to house the original excavation at the site. "The stepping roof forms repeat the historic form from the original wood shelter. The new structure would be steel and the exterior walls glass for a more open feel than that of the original." Concept 3 involved construction of a new steel bow-truss structure to replace the original exhibit hall. "The guiding principle of this concept is the original intent of Mission 66, striking modem architecture. This concept demolishes the existing building and replaces the exhibit hall with a contemporary structure that echoes the native eroded land forms.

The vaulted roof gently rolls to follow the curve of the hill as it would have existed had the quarry not been excavated. The roof form is allegorically excavated thereby revealing the bones of the building." In Concept 4 a new steel and glass viewing shelter with a fabric roof cover would be constructed in place of the original building. "This approach is intended to be light on the land and create a structure that is flexible, to be able to respond to the active soil conditions." 133 The four conceptual designs varied considerably in projected cost. With its restoration of the existing exhibit hall and new construction, the Concept 1 treatment would cost million.

Or million if a spiral entry ramp were constructed in the southeast comer to mimic the original structure that wrapped around the administration wing. The vernacular building of Concept 2, patterned after Douglass' minimalist early shed, would cost almost $7 million. With its arched trusses and bowed roof, the domed structure described in Concept 3 was the most architecturally complex of the alternatives-and the most expensive. It would cost million. The fabric- roofed structure of Concept 4 was expected to cost million. Including the associated construction on the Lower Quarry Visitor Center, the costs ranged from million to million.

The cost estimates for all the alternatives were all considerably higher than the million pre-design estimate made in June which itself had exceeded previous estimates. As time went on and the extent of damage became clearer, the cost to repair and/or replace the Visitor Center at Dinosaur was escalating inexorably. 132 Andrews & Anderson, "Stabilize, Rehabilitate ... ", 5. 133 Ibid., QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 45 The architectural studies were followed in March by yet another study-the "Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Assessment of Effect" (EIS) for the Visitor Center. 134 By this point the center was still closed to the public, and no major repairs had been undertaken, despite its deteriorating condition.

Like the reports that preceded it, the Environmental Impact Statement detailed a series of alternatives for treatment of the Visitor Center. These were similar to the plans developed three years earlier at the Alternatives Workshop. Alternative A, the first of the five options, would continue the current management of the Visitor Center. The Park Service would continue to monitor the building and the fossil wall, but, beyond structural repairs to address specific issues, no major rehabilitation or construction efforts would be undertaken in the near future. Some of the exhibits from the Visitor Center would be moved to the existing Visitor Contact Center, but the fossil wall would be closed to visitors.

With treatment thus restricted to maintaining and repairing critical structural elements, park staff would be freed to devote more time to maintenance and repair of other park facilities and infrastructure. This benefit would be offset, however, by relocation of paleontological staff to other work sites and consequent loss of efficiency. Most importantly, the centerpiece of the park would be closed to the public indefinitely. It was the least expensive-but also the least tenable-plan. Alternative B would provide shelter and interpretation of the fossil wall, either through rehabilitation of the existing exhibit hall or construction of the new structure.

The existing administration wing, south wing and the serpentine ramp would all be demolished, and the functions they housed would be relocated to a new visitor center built at the existing Visitor Contact Area. "The Exhibit Hall's steel and glass superstructure," the Impact Statement noted, "would either be stabilized and rehabilitated or demolished and rebuilt to eliminate structural deficiencies, improve ventilation, and reduce access for moisture and animals such as rodents, bats, and birds. The Exhibit Hall foundation would be improved or rebuilt through the installation of structural piers drilled to a depth of approximately 65 to 85 feet below grade.

The gantry crane would be salvaged, rehabilitated, and reused." Alternative C would retain and rehabilitate the existing exhibit hall, demolish the south and administration wings and the ramp, and construct a new Visitor Center at the quarry site. Alternative D would also retain the existing exhibit hall and construct new wings similar to the demolished south and administration wings. At the other end of the spectrum from Alternative A, Alternative E would demolish the entire Quarry Visitor Center and construct an all-new facility at the site. "This alternative would demolish in its entirety and construct a new 13,000-square-foot visitor center designed to meet park interpretation, operation, and maintenance needs.

The new building would be engineered and constructed to avoid structural problems associated with the underlying expansive soils." 135 Since the primary function of the Quarry Visitor Center is to provide shelter for the fossil deposits, the protection of geologic and paleontological resources is of major import. Alternatives B, C, D and E all provide the benefit of eliminating water seepage into the underlying strata. Unfortunately, none of the alternatives would be risk-free: foundation demolition and construction of new foundations and utilities pose possible threats to the quarry 134 U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "Final Environmental Impact Statement I Assessment of Effect for the Quarry Visitor Center Treatment Project," March 135 "Final Environmental Impact Statement," vi-viii. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 46 face. Drilling and placement of new deep piers also pose problems. Still, the risk of doing nothing under Alternative A is far greater since it would ensure the necessity of ongoing repairs and altered drainage and infiltration at the site. Alternative B has been the preferred option since the Alternatives Workshop held in and it has formed the basis for subsequent architectural studies. The EIS only serves to formalize its status as the preferred alternative.

As stated by the EIS: Based on this analysis, Alternative B is the environmentally preferred alternative. Alternative B would reduce the developed footprint and eliminate the potential for water leaks into the expansive soils at the Quarry Visitor Center site and construct a new visitor center in a more environmentally stable site. Thus, Alternative B would greatly reduce the risk to the Exhibit Hall and the fossils and ensure the long-term viability of the facilities compared to the other action alternatives.

It best fulfills the long-term NPS responsibilities as trustee of the outstanding fossil resources; ensures safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; and attains a wider range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation and risk to the environment or health and safety. 136 On September 2, Regional Director, Michael Snyder signed the Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The record of decision adopted Alternative B and formally initiated the planning and design for a new visitor center and administrative facility.

Through formal consultation with the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer, the National Park Service also agreed to design and construct a permanent wayside exhibit that will help educate future park visitors of the exceptional architectural legacy that once surrounded and protected one of the most prolific and most visible Jurassic dinosaur fossil deposits in the world. 137 136 Ibid., 62. 137U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "Final Environmental Impact Statement/Assessment of Effect for the Quarry Visitor Center Treatment Project: Record of Decision," September 2, QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 47 PART II. ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION A. General Information 1.

Architectural Merit and Interest: The Quarry Visitor Center is of architectural merit for its representation of Mission 66 Visitor Centers and of the Park Service Modem architectural style. The butterfly steel-frame construction provides a basis for the visitor center's status. Of particular interest is the exhibit hall, built in-situ over Jurassic Era specimens in the exposed quarry wall, also, the serpentine entry ramp and the cylindrical administrative wing. 2. Condition of Fabric: Numerous signs of structural displacement, cracks, wall and roof modifications, and glazing replacement. 3. Summary Description: The function and appearance of the Quarry Visitor Center are symbiotic, built as it was to protect one of the most important accumulations of Jurassic Era specimens.

The contrast between modem architectural geometry and rough asymmetrical terrain, complements rather than detracts from the dusty desert panorama. The cylindrical structure of the administrative wing appears to germinate from the rock wall while the butterfly roof, which virtually parallels the quarry face, summits impressive glazed walls. The welcoming curves of the serpentine walkway winds its way to the second story entrance. Dominate materials of concrete, block, glass, and painted steel contribute to the modem look. B. Detailed Description of Exterior: 1. Foundation: Concrete 2. Walls: Concrete, Concrete block, steel, glass 3. Administrative Wing: The cylindrical administrative wing connects to the Exhibit Gallery on two levels, and the south wing on the ground level.

Constructed of unpainted, stacked course, concrete block pilasters, the gray tubular shaped administrative wing serves as the Quarry Visitor Center's vanguard when viewed from the parking lot. Narrow windows are spaced at regular intervals, a combination of fixed transom and lower sash with selected lower sashes operable casements. Two-block -wide pilasters give the administrative wing a fluted appearance. Stacked primary entrances are located at the two-story connection between the two levels of the administration wing and the exhibit shelter. The entry doors are glazed, double doors with fixed transom windows. The round roof is flat and contains a circular skylight bubble at its center. 4. South Wing: The one-story south wing runs the entire length of the exhibit shelter.

It is composed of concrete block and natural gray concrete aggregate, though the window easements are painted pink. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 48 5. Exhibit Shelter: The exhibit shelter's most notable feature is the asymmetrical butterfly steel-frame construction set into the rock wall of the quarry. The concrete foundation is set literally on the rock. The high-point on the north elevation of the butterfly appears to rise alongside its natural surroundings, descending to a cantilevered roof on the south elevation. The vertical mullions and muntins of the rigid curtain wall are welded into steel curtain wall rails and incorporated into steel columns. Glazed gallery walls highlight all four elevations, the majority consisting of fixed glass.

The roof of tapered steel reef primary beams, steel transverse purlins and wood planking, seems to elevate above the curtain walls. 6. Serpentine .Emn: Ramp: The serpentine entry ramp leads the way to the second floor public entrance to the Quarry Visitor Center. The ramp winds around the cylindrical administrative wing at a steep slope. The curvature of the ramp and administrative wing help establish a visual cohesion with the angular geometry of the butterfly-roofed exhibit shelter. 7. Structural System: Steel, glass, concrete 8. Roof: Concrete, steel, timber decking, masonry C. Detailed Description oflnterior 1. Total Floor Area= SF 2.

Administration Wing: The first floor of the administrative wing provides access to the exhibit shelter, a reception/sales area, offices and a central vestibule that provides access to the second floor via a winding staircase. Tiled public restrooms and a Janitor's closet are located on the second floor. The walls of the administrative wing are paneled with wood. 3. South Wing: The one story south wing runs the length of the exhibit shelter. The south wing houses the electrical main switchboard and telephone board in the Mechanical Room at the extreme west end. This room also houses the heating equipment for the administrative wing and the south wing.

Visitors witness a lab in action through interior windows installed at the west end of the north wall of the preparation lab, east of the mechanical room. A corridor on the north side and east end provide access to a staff toilet, janitor's closet, paleontologist workspace and a Library and Conference room. The walls of the south wing are mainly wood frame and painted gypsum board on concrete block. Pipe chase also runs along the majority of the south wing's walls, from the floor up to a level of about 3 feet. Book shelves are located in the Preparation Lab, the paleontologist workspace, and the library and conference room. 4. Exhibit Shelter: The exhibit shelter is approximately 60' wide by long and abuts the face of the quarry to cover the Jurassic-era fossils, the focus of the exhibit.

The structure is constructed primarily of steel, glass and concrete. The steel beams are exposed at equal intervals in the interior and painted a dark brown. Wood roof decking planks that run parallel to the beams are painted pink, QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 49 as are the steel purlins that run at right angles the main beams. The ceiling ascends at a 4 to 12 slope and climbs more than 50 feet from the floor at its highest point. The glass is framed by ten steel frames spaced 20 feet apart. The north wall is a 12-foot high window, supported by a 3- foot high concrete wall on a 2-foot deep concrete footing set on the quarry's sandstone outcrop. The east and west walls are similarly situated steel-framed glass walls reinforced by concrete foundation walls.

Large panes of glass are supported by a welded steel mullion and muntin lattice on all four walls, providing a continuity between the outside desert-scape and the indoor museum experience. The nature of their construction, create an inflexible curtain wall. A 14-foot upper visitor gallery protrudes from the south wall at an elevation of 12 feet above the floor and follows the length of the building. While a lower visitor gallery is located beneath the upper gallery mezzanine. The floor is concrete fill on metal decking. Also located in the exhibit shelter wing are the lunch room/kitchen and storage room. PART III.

PROJECT INFORMATION The historical narrative up to page 36 is largely derived from a National Historic Landmark nomination for the Quarry Visitor Center written by Ethan Carr and Sarah Allaback in which in turn relied heavily on "Mission 66 Visitor Centers: The History of a Building Type," by Sarah Allaback The history was updated by Clayton Fraser of FraserDesign in The extensive bibliography was compiled by Pamela Milavec while working as a student intern (University of Colorado at Denver) for the Intermountain Regional Office of the National Park Service, and was completed by Jacqui Ainlay-Conley (consultant). Photography was conducted by Roger Whitacre. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 50 PART IV.

REFERENCE LIST Rather than listing documents that were used in creating this HABS recordation, this research bibliography is an attempt to compile a more comprehensive list of citations for technical documentation about the Quarry Visitor Center. It is our hope that researchers investigating this building will benefit from this effort. The citations are organized by the depositories that hold the documents, in the following arrangement: A. National Park Service. Denver Service Center. Technical Information Center. 1. Documents 2. Drawings 3. Photographs B. National Park Service. Dinosaur National Monument. 1. Document Collection 2. Historic Maps & Drawing Collection 3. Administrative Black-And-White Photograph Collection C. National Archives. Central Plains Region, Kansas City, MO. 1.

Records of the National Park Service. Record Group 79. A. National Park Service. Denver Service Center. Technical Information Center. The Technical Information Center (TIC) uses an electronic document management system known as eTIC. Many of the documents, reports, drawings, and maps can be accessed online from eTIC. The TIC record number is included in each entry, for example, DINO 1. Documents Andrews and Anderson Architects. Final Architectural Building Program, Pre- design, Quarry Visitors' Center. DINO Site analysis and programming alternatives for the restoration, rehabilitation or replacement of the Quarry Visitor Center. Table of contents, tables, graphs, maps, drawings. 160 pages. Andrews and Anderson Architects, Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture, and DHM Design Group.

Stabilize, Rehabilitate or Replace Historic Quarry Visitor Center: Upper Quarry Shelter and Lower Quarry Visitor Center Pre-Design Services. DINO Produced after the building was closed, addresses the alternative to renovate or replace the visitor center as an exhibit hall only. Stabilize, Rehabilitate or Replace Historic Quarry Visitor Center, Dinosaur National Monument: Value Analysis Study. DINO 1. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 51 Stabilize, Rehabilitate or Replace Historic Quarry Visitor Center, Dinosaur National Monument: Schematic Design Report. DINO 1. Andrews and Anderson Architects; JVA, Inc.; Yeh & Associates, Inc.; and Arc, Inc. Structural Evaluation Report for Quarry Visitor Center.

DINO Independent study to provide a basis for evaluating options for a sound technical basis for rehabilitation and repair of the Quarry Visitor Center. Table of contents, drawings, photographs, tables, graphs, and appendix. 70 pages. Chen Northern, Inc. "Geotechnical Engineering Study: Distress to Quarry Visitor Center, Dinosaur National Monument." Prepared for the Landplan Design Group. DINO Examines the causes of the Visitor Center building movement in the past and remedial recommendations to prevent future movement. Finds that continued uplift from expansive claystone bedrock is cause of distress. Maps, graphs, and tables. 46 pages. Dewell, Robert D. "Quarry Area Visitor Center: Design Calculations." DINO Notes of design calculations for Quarry Visitor Center.

Dewell was a civil and structural engineer. 71 pages. NA, Inc. Life-Safety Monitoring Report. DINO Findings from the site visit of September after NPS closed the building to the public. Compares findings to those of the May site visit and found no significant changes. This was the second of four visits made by a formal Monitoring Program commissioned by the National Park Service to take place between May and May based on the Structural Evaluation Report recommendations. Table of contents, drawings, photographs, and graphs. 37 pages. See also the first report, in the Dinosaur National Monument collection. National Park Service. "Dinosaur National Monument," by B. Brown.

DINO 122 Provides basic land use/research information, management zoning, land classification and archeological research of the quarry area and visitor center. 15 pages. "Report Relating to Status of Project," by A.C. Doyle, JR. DINO Geological maps, volcanic formations, hydrothermal formations, geysers, and slopes, basic research information, management zoning, and land classification. 58 pages. "Special Report on the Geology of Dinosaur National Monument," by G. E. Untermann and B. R. Untermann. Two parts, "Dinosaur Quarry-Split Mountain Area" and "Yampa Green River Area." DINO Geological maps, volcanic formations, hydrothermal formations, geysers and slopes; QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 52 basic research information, management zoning, and land classification.

"Development Concept Plan: Dinosaur Quarry." DINO 122 D3. "Engineering Study: Sewage Treatment." DINO Utility studies. "Draft Environmental Statement/Development Concept Plan: Dinosaur Quarry." DINO Development concept plan, and environmental impact statement. "Mission 66 Visitor Centers: The History of a Building Type," by Sarah Allaback. Park News: Environmental Impact Statement, Quarry Visitor Center. DINO Newsletter outlining the possible alternatives suggested by the Environmental Impact Study Team for the Quarry Visitor Center. Included a questionnaire eliciting public opinion. 4 pages. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Assessment of Effect for the Quarry Visitor Center Treatment Project.

DINO Evaluates five alternatives concerning the treatment of the Quarry Visitor Center, which include the alternatives of no action, rehabilitation, construction or demolition. Drawings, tables, bibliography, and appendix. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Assessment ofEffect for the Quarry Visitor Center Treatment Project. DINO 122 Evaluates five alternatives designed to address the structural shortcomings that led to the Visitor Center's closure in Indentifies the preferred alternative as rehabilitation or replacing the Exhibit Hall and constructing a new facility off site.

The comprehensive study also analyzed and took into consideration the impact on cultural, geologic, and paleontological resources; as well as visitor use, socioeconomics, safety, public health, and park management and operations. 225 pages. See Record of Decision in the Dinosaur National Monument collection. Denver Service Center. "Environmental Assessment: Proposed Comprehensive Design Plan, Dinosaur National Monument, Dinosaur Quarry. " DINO Describes plans to construct a new parking lot, new sewage treatment facility and the replacement of a water tank with an underground concrete reservoir, due to increased visitor usage of the Quarry Visitor Center. Table of contents, maps, photographs, drawings, tables, and appendix. 63 pages. Denver Service Center.

Project Manual: Dinosaur National Monument Quarry, Concrete Walks and Wheelchair Ramp. DINO QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 53 Invitation for bids for work on the quarry concrete walks and wheelchair ramp. Includes forms, instructions, maps, and drawings. 100 pages. Denver Service Center. National Historic Landmark Nomination: Quarry Visitor Center, by Sarah Allaback and Ethan Carr. DINO Unsigned copy. Denver Service Center. Quarry Visitor Center: Historic Structure Report. DINO Results of thorough field study found the building was in dire need of stabilization and because of advanced structural failure recommends the total replacement of South and Administration wings. Table of Contents, maps, photographs, drawings, and appendix. 154 pages. Intermountain Region.

Western Archeological and Conservation Center. Dinosaur National Monument Museum Management Plan. DINO Recommends that NPS move the library, archives, and most collections out of the Quarry Visitor Center to proposed center in Vernal. Rocky Mountain Region. Dinosaur National Monument. "Environmental Review: Dinosaur Quarry." DINO Environmental assessment for demolition of 2/3 of existing parking lot; construction of new parking area, new visitor contact station, and aerated sewage lagoon; work on roads; and the modification of the utility system and an underground reinforced concrete reservoir. Determined not a major action. 2 pages. Western Museum Laboratory.

"Dinosaur Interpretive Plans." 3 vols., "Volume 1, Quarry Visitor Center Exhibit Plan, "Volume II, Museum Prospectus, and "Volume III, Interpretive Planning Report, Artesia Headquarters." DINO 122 A collection of correspondence, drawings, tables, and graphs that pertain to early Quarry Visitor Center interpretive planning. Rothrock, H. E. "Report on Inspection of Dinosaur National Monument," DINO Basic research information, land use, management zoning, and land classification. 8 pages. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 54 2. Drawings Anshen & Allen, Architects. "Visitor Center." DINO Revision B. 2 sheets. 22" x 34" or Preliminary drawing. "Visitor Center-Section." DINO 1 sheet. 22" x 34" or Schematic design. "Visitor Center Schemes B & C-Quarry Site." DINO 1 sheet.

22" x 34" or Preliminary drawing of first and second floors. "Visitor Center, Quarry Site-Perspective Renderings." DINO 9 sheets. 22" x 34" or "Rigid Frame Visitors Center." DINO 1 sheet. Preliminary drawing. "Visitor Center Site Plan and Parking Area-Quarry Area." DINO 1 sheet. 22" x 34" x Preliminary drawing. "Visitor Center." DINO Revision C. 7 pages. 22" x 34" or Preliminary drawings. "Visitor Center." DINO Revision D. 7 pages. Preliminary drawings/approved. Signed by National Park Service Director Conrad Wirth. "Visitor Center." DINO Revision E. 31 pages. Working drawings, including interior material and finish schedule, approved. "Visitor Center." DINO Revision A. 3 pages. Exhibit plans. "Visitor Center." DINO Revision G. 2 pages. Floor plans of upper and lower levels.

"Visitor Center-Proposed Modification for Stair in Circular Element. DINO Revision A. 1 page. 22" x 34" or Working drawing, or construction drawing. Expanded elevation of stair. "Visitor Center." DINO Revision F. 3 pages. Exhibit layout. Architectural plan and elevations. Miscellaneous arch details, exhibit QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 55 plan, electrical lower level plan and details. "Visitor Center-Finish and Color Schedule." DINO 122 Revision A. 1 page. 22" x 34" or Engineering Services "Replace Waterline." DINO 13 pages. "Replace Waterline." DINO Revision A. 8 pages. As-constructed drawings. Moon Lake Electric Association. "Dinosaur Quarry Underground Distribution." DINO 1 page. Mountain States Telephone Company. "Underground Power Cable." DINO 1 page.

National Park Service. "Museum Building." DINO Revision A. 1 page. Preliminary drawing. "Water/Sewer Reconstruction, Quarry Visitor Center." DINO 2 pages. Approved. Designed by Meagher and drawn by Windle. New man holes and PVC water lines, re-plumb waterline service to boiler room, lab, toilets and Administration wing. Branch of Engineering. "Drainage Ditch Lining thru Administration" and "Cross Sections of Drainage Ditch Lining thru Administration Area." DINO Revision A. 2 pages. Branch of Engineering. "Water Development." DINO Revision A. 3 pages. Branch of Engineering. "Masonry Channel Extension." DINO Revision, B. 1 page. Includes drawing of cross section of masonry-lined channel. Branch of Plans and Design. "Grading Plan-West Spoil Bank." DINO Branch of Plans and Design.

"Channel Lining." DINO 1 page. Branch of Plans and Design. "Dinosaur Quarry Area: Part of the Master Plan for Dinosaur National Monument." DINO 1 page. Branch of Plans and Design. "Museum Building." DINO Revision B. 1 page. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 56 Preliminary drawing. Branch of Plans and Design. "Preliminary Sketch, Museum, Quarry Area." DINO Revision C. 1 page. Preliminary drawing. Denver Service Center. "Existing Quarry Area Development." DINO 1 page. Site and development. Denver Service Center. "Geologic Map of the Quarry Area." DINO 1 page. Site and development. Denver Service Center. "Proposed Quarry Area Development." DINO 1 page. Site and development. Denver Service Center. "The Quarry and Its Surroundings." DINO 1 page. Site and development.

Denver Service Center. "Water System Improvements." DINO 9 pages. Preliminary drawings. Denver Service Center. "Water and Sewer System Improvements." DINO Revision A. 18 pages. Approved construction drawing. Denver Service Center. "Water and Sewer System Improvements." DINO Revision B. 20 pages. As-constructed drawing. Denver Service Center. "Road, Parking Area and Rehabilitation of Roads." DINO 36 pages. Construction drawings. Installed concrete parking lot and peripheral walk, wood handrails, timber curb, and wood benches. Denver Service Center. "Road, Parking Area and Rehabilitation of Roads." DINO Revision A. 36 pages. As-constructed drawings. Installed concrete parking lot and peripheral walk, wood handrails, timber curb, and wood benches. Denver Service Center.

"Concrete Walks and Wheelchair Ramp, Quarry Area," by Cannavo and Tauscher, and checked by R. Whisson. DINO QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 57 3 pages. Construction drawings. Reduced size reproductions. Denver Service Center. "Concrete Walks and Wheelchair Ramp, Quarry Area," by Cannavo and Tauscher, and checked by R. Whisson. DINO Revision A. 3 pages. As-constructed drawings. Denver Service Center. "Quarry Area Development Concept Plan." DINO 1 page. Denver Service Center. "Quarry Area Development Concept Plan." DINO Revision A. Site and development plans. Denver Service Center. "Rehab Quarry Water, Quarry." DINO 4 pages. Approved construction drawings. Denver Service Center. "Rehab Sewer System, Quarry." DINO 8 pages. Approved construction drawings. Denver Service Center.

"New LP Gas System: Visitor Center, Quarry District." DINO 3 pages. Approved construction drawings. Division of Design and Construction. Washington Office. "Visitor's Center, Quarry Site: Comment Sketch." DINO 1 page. Drawings of both upper floor and lower floors. Division of Design and Construction. Western Office. "Reconstruction Visitor Center Plaza." DINO Revision C. 3 pages. As-constructed drawing. Ramp metal handrails, ramp steps with paved walk, site drainage, subsurface site open joint French drain lines, parking lot metal pipe guardrail, and roof drainage system. Division of Design and Construction. Western Office. Branch of Architecture. "Oil Supply System." DINO 1 page. Division of Design and Construction. Western Office. Branch of Architecture.

"Exterior Painting Limits-Visitor Center." DINO 2 pages. Division of Design and Construction. Western Office. Engineering Branch. "Water & Sewer Systems." DINO Revision A. 6 pages. As-constructed drawing. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 58 Division of Design and Construction. Western Office. Engineering Branch. "Pump and Pumphouse." DINO Revision A. 1 page. As-constructed drawing. Division of Design and Construction. Western Office. Landscape Architectural Branch. "Quarry Area: Part of the Master Plan, Alternative Scheme A." DINO Revision C. 1 page. Advance copy. Site and Development plans. Division of Design and Construction. Western Office. Landscape Architectural Branch. "Quarry Area: Part of the Master Plan." DINO Revision H. Approved. Division of Design and Construction.

Western Office. Landscape Architectural Branch. "Quarry Area Utilities: Part of the Master Plan." DINO 1 page. Division of Design and Construction. Western Office. Landscape Architectural Branch. "Quarry Area Utilities: Part of the Master Plan." DINO Revision A. 1 page. Intermountain Field Area. "Paint & Finish Schedule, Interior Work," by Chris Jones. DINO 1 page. 22" x 34"or 36" Intermountain Field Area. Intermountain Support Office. "Replace Lagoon Liner: Quarry." DINO 122 3 pages. Approved construction drawing. Interpretive Design Center. Exhibit Planning and Design. Harpers Ferry. "Dinosaur National Monument Quarry Center Book Store." DINO 8 pages. Final drawings. Planned by Julia Holmaas and designed by Strand. Interpretive Design Center. Exhibit Planning and Design. Harpers Ferry.

"Quarry Visitor Center." DINO pages. Plans, drawings, and specifications for exhibits. Planned by Julia Holmaas and designed by Strand. Midwest Regional Office. Maintenance Division. "Repair Visitor Center Plaza." DINO 1 page. Working drawing. Midwest Regional Office. Maintenance Division. "Repair Buildings Dinosaur Quarry Area." DINO Revision A. 2 pages. As-constructed drawing. Repairs to east plaza pavement slab, roof drainage system, QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 59 Boiler Room floor drain, 13 damaged windows (re-glazed), realigned pavement slab surface at east plaza. Region Two. Architecture Division. "Temporary Quarry Shelter." DINO Revision A. 2 pages. Region Two. Branch of Engineering. original dates "Topography, Dinosaur Quarry Area." DINO Revision A. 14 pages.

Topographical maps and index of the quarry area. Region Two. Operational Division. "Quarry Area: Part of the Master Plan." DINO Revision B. 1 page. Preliminary plan. Rocky Mountain Region. "Replace USTS: Quarry, Lodore & Headquarters." DINO 122 6 pages. Approved construction drawings. San Francisco Planning and Service Center. "Repairs to Visitor Center." DINO 7 pages. Approved working drawing. San Francisco Planning and Service Center. "Repairs to Visitor Center." DINO Revision A. 6 pages. As-constructed drawing.

Repairs to columns, doors, horizontal and vertical building elements, exhibit shelter roof, main collection sewer line under lower administrative wing floor, exhibit shelter roof horizontal drain line, extended the lower level lobby to the north, extended the upper level visitor gallery floor, replaced sash windows on east and west wall elevations, removed host hydrant at base of column B 10, removed and rerouted fire house cabinet in first floor lobby. San Francisco Planning and Service Center. Design and Construction Office. "Reconstruction Plaza & Entry Walks." DINO 1 page. Approved construction drawing. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 60 3. Photographs Brodrick, and George Grant.

"Quarry Visitor Center/Administration Building/Maintenance and Utility Building /Museum." DINO 7 sheets. Contains sixteen color slides, five 3 x 5" color photos with captions, one 4 x 6" black- and-white photo with negative, three 5 x 7" black-and-white photos with captions, and one 8 x 1O" black-and-white photo with negative. National Park Service. "Quarry Views." DINO 3 sheets. Contains four 8 x 11" black-and-white photos and eighteen color slides with captions. "Dinosaur Visitor Center/Quarry Visitor Center and Site Plans." DINO 122 1 sheet. Contains six color slides and five black-and-white site plan slides. "Visitor Center-Quarry Site; Residential Area Site." DINO 122 3 sheets. Contains thirteen color slides with captions and one 8 x 10" black-and-white site photograph with caption.

Date unknown. "Visitor Center." DINO 2 sheets. Contains one 8Xl Oblack-and-white photo, negative, and description. National Park Service. Bruce Keller and Geoffrey Yost. "Quarry Visitor Center Site Visit." DINO 122 P2. 160 sheets. Color copies of photo images on x 11" index sheets. Scharf and Associates. "Dinosaur National Monument Quarry Site." DINO 122 1 sheet. Index of aerial photos in DINO Scharf and Associates. "Quarry Site." DINO 17 sheets. Seventeen black-and-white aerial photographs. Index of photos is filed as DINO Film is on file. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 61 B. National Park Service. Dinosaur National Monument. 1. Document Collection.

DINO "Quarry Phone Line Replacement, Project includes completion of DINO telephone and computer system upgrade in the Green River District network system. The project was to install fiber optic network and phone cable (DINO ER CO54) to Quarry area. Upgrade Lodore Ranger Station, telephone & computer network (DINO ER CO55). ff 001 PMIS sheets and Project Data Sheets, Proposed project report. Intermountain region priority list for Maintenance and Construction Plan, project data sheets. ff 002 Requisitions for Services and Supplies. ff 003 Bill statements. ff 004 Miscellaneous Correspondence, ff 005 Miscellaneous Correspondence, ff 006 Miscellaneous Correspondence, DINO "Plumbing Repairs, This collection contains project No. documents from a plumbing repair project contracted to Inc.

The contract work included the following: "installing building waste plumbing, containment trenches and piping, sewer pipe and manholes, water lines including valves, vaults, connections and containment, interior water piping, pressure tank, and water supply related work." The majority of the correspondence covers the disputes of the contract, such as work hours. Work began in October and was completed in 3 files items) of correspondence bid invitations, Assessment of Effect form and project documents for this plumbing repair project at the Quarry Visitor Center. ff 001 "Plumbing Repairs: Solicitation and Drawings," This folder contains the Solicitation (Bid) and three annotated sets of drawings of "Water/Sewer Reconstruction Quarry Visitor Center" Drawing no (7 pages).

The set containing three pages is a full-size original ff 002 "Plumbing Repairs: Correspondence and Project Documents," ff 003 "Assessment of Effect Form," Because the plumbing repairs were done on the Quarry Visitor Center, which was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, an assessment form was required. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 62 DINO "Rehab Quarry Water Line at Quarry Visitor Center, Contains 3 files items) of bid proposals, correspondence, project documents and documents pertaining to Quarry Waterline problems.

ff 001 "Rehab Quarry Waterline: Proposals," ff 002 "Rehab Quarry Waterline; Project Documents," Contains contract documents, a bid schedule, change order, a Notice to Proceed, transmittals, contract progress schedules, material submittals, a list of seeding recommendations, notes, general project correspondence and many changes to the proposal. ff 003 "Early Documentation of Quarry Waterline Problems, and Correspondence dated addresses the results of pressure tests on water system at the Quarry Visitor Center. Documents from include: 1) a trip report for providing technical assistance for correcting waterline breaks beneath the Quarry Visitor Center and 2) correspondence regarding three major water breaks and their impacts on the facility.

DINO "Quarry Visitor Center Waterline Installation, Contains 3 files items) of bid and project documents for this installation (central cable, burial/piping modifications/overlay) project at the Quarry Visitor Center. Such documents include a bid invitation, material submittals, and requests for payment. ff 001 "Install Waterline at Quarry: Bid Invitation Documents," ff 002 "Install Waterline at Quarry: Project Documents,"1999-2000. Dinosaur National Monument-Clawson Excavating, Inc. Correspondence, a notice of award, material submittals and comments, a project schedule, a notice to proceed, and several requests for partial payment. ff 003 "Install Waterline at Quarry & Project Documents," National Park Service and Clawson Excavating, Inc.

Contains requests for payment and material submittals. DINO "Reconstruction of Plaza and Entry Walks at Quarry Visitor Center, Collection contains records from a repair project on the Quarry Plaza and entry walks contracted to Max Rasmussen in Early correspondence suggests the contract included the following tasks: the removal of Quarry concrete sidewalks and replacement with native asphalt, removal of cobblestone, the repair of drain tile, and the backfilling entire area with native asphalt.

A completion report contains photos documenting the following activities, "Removal of Bentonitic Base Material," "Filling Area with Native Asphalt Material," "Spreading Bituminous Plant Mix on Walk Area," and completed "New Curb and Gutter along Walk Area." 1 file pages including five color photos QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 63 inside a completion report) of bid/contract and project documents. Such materials include a project proposal, correspondence, and bid invitation, notice of award and completion report.

ff 001 "Reconstruction of Plaza and Entry Walks of Quarry Visitor Center [CX 14- by Max Rasmussen," Contains a project construction proposal for emergency repairs to the Quarry Plaza and entry walks; Drawing No titled "Reconstruction Plaza and Entry Walks Quarry Area" dated correspondence regarding construction suggestion for walks and plaza, Drawing NM- D IN Drawing No and project information, and bid documents. DINO "Re-Roofing of Quarry Visitor Center," Records from a roofing project contracted to Steven Pitt of Pitt Roofing and Painting in The contract called for the re-roofing of the Quarry Visitor Center by application of felt paper and bituminous asphalt. 1 file (41 pages) of correspondence bid documents and contract records.

DINO "Pedestrian Bridge Evaluation and Recommendation,"1995. Contains an evaluation and recommendations report of the Quarry pedestrian bridge prepared by the Federal Highway Administration (Bonnie Klamerew and Peter Mertes). Structural instability of the Quarry Visitor building combined with the condition of wet soils surrounding the area caused concern for the pedestrian bridge's operational safety. 1 In the NPS solicited a structural analysis to be done by the Western Bridge Design Office to address structural capacity of the entry ramp to the 2nd floor. The report concludes that the structural capacity remains. Thirty-eight page report.

ff 001 "Pedestrian Bridge Evaluation and Recommendations," Prepared by Bonnie Klamerus, P.E., and Peter Mertes, Western Bridge Design Office, Federal Highway Administration. DINO "Conditions of the Quarry Visitor Center Contains documents regarding the existing deteriorating conditions. 1 file (21 pages) of correspondence, trip reports, project proposal and drawings.

ff 001 "Conditions of the Quarry Visitor Center: Dinosaur National Monument," Contains correspondence, trip reports, a project proposal and drawing that addresses the following subjects: removal of asphaltic concrete paving and concrete splash block, geotechnical services for building inspection standing water on circular building, inspection of utilities, ballast of four roof beams, historical structure report, and most recent building movement. There are several drawings not associated with the projects of this accession but are related to the Quarry Visitor Center. DINO "Concrete Walks & Wheelchair Ramp This collection contains project documents from a construction project contracted to Bruce Cornwall.

Two files items) of correspondence, bid documents, and project QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 64 documents. "Concrete Walks & Wheelchair Ramp: Bid Documents National Park Service," "Concrete Walks & Wheelchair Ramp: Project Documents," DINO "Repair ofHVAC System at Quarry Visitor Center" Repaired the HVAC system in the Quarry Visitor Center Contract No. CX-1200-1-Bo77, subcontract no. (a)-81-C-367. Includes bid forms, construction contract, minutes of pre-construction meeting, release of claims and four architectural drawings of Visitor Center, Quarry Site, Drawing NM-DIN/3102-E. DINO "Exhaust System Installation at the Quarry Paleo Lab," Fume and particulate exhaust system in the paleontological laboratory to be replaced due to ventilation requirements.

Construction contract to Jim Clark. Diagrams for the exhaust system. DINO ff 001 "Bids, Drawings and Wage Rates Dinosaur National Monument," Bid submittal package, invitation for bid, a set of six drawings ("Paint Visitor Center Quarry Site," "Plan Lower Level," "Plan Upper Level," "Paint and Finish Schedule ) Interior Work," "Paint and Finish Schedule Exterior," "Building Photos" and a set of "Wage Rates.") ff 002 "Specifications Dinosaur National Monument," Two variations of specifications used in this project. ff 003 "Project Manual: Paint Quarry Visitor Center," August DINO ff 004 "Painting Submittals for Dinosaur National Monument Visitor Center," Author: Gonzales Custom Painting Inc.

ff 005 "Contract Documents," Author: Gonzales Custom Painting ff 006 "Project Documents," DINO489 ff 001 "Installation of Fire and Intrusion Alarm, - Contract No. 35 photos & negatives. Reynolds Fire Protection, Inc. DINO "Construction of Roads and Parking Areas of the Quarry Visitor Center, Contract No. This project was contracted to Cecil Murray Intermountain Concrete Company and entailed road construction, parking area grading, bridge construction, bridge, base course, colored concrete curb and gutter, QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 65 timber guard rail, overlook and walk for the Quarry Visitor Center. Other contracts listed under the Completion Report for this project include: Contract No. (Murray's Trucking & Excavation), Contract No. Clyde & Company) and Contract No.

(Corn Construction, Inc). These contracts are headed by the main project title of"Construct Parking Areas and Roads," similar to the one assigned to this collection. Completion reports, estimates, memorandums, notices, bid documents, and specifications pertaining to project titled, "Road and Parking Areas, Grading, Bridge, Base Course Colored Concrete Curb & Gutter, Timber Guard Rail, Overlook & Walk for Visitor Center-Quarry Area" contracted to Intermountain Concrete Co. in under Contract no The Completion Report for this project includes the following Contract Nos.

(Murray's Trucking & Excavation), Clyde & Co), (Corn Construction Inc.) DINO "Road Construction for Quarry Area and Split Mountain Campground & Gorge." ff 001 "Road Construction for Quarry Area and Split Mountain Campground & Gorge, - Contract No. This project contract was awarded to Corn Construction, Inc. for the following projects: 1) the ) completion of the roads and parking areas to the visitor center; 2) widening and resurfacing the Quarry Entrance Road; 3) grading, widening and surfacing the Split Mountain Gorge Rd; and 4) construction of the Split Mountain Gorge Campground Loop Road. DINO Box 1 Construction project May 1, -May 9, Contract No This project was contracted to McCullough Construction Company and entailed the construction of the Quarry Visitor Center.

Correspondence generated during the project concerns the approval of shop drawings, discrepancies in the structural and architectural drawings, and concrete color selection. Correspondence just prior to and after the completion of the Quarry Visitor Center involved matters relating to the movement of the circular stairway, glass panel substitution for porcelain panels, the vibration of the balcony slab and its repair, furnace readjustments, and damage of and repairs to the leaking roof of the circular element.

ff 001 "Construction of the Quarry Visitor Center, Contract Documents, Contract documents; a completion report, a narrative statement, photographic images, memos, work orders, contract and bid documents, specifications, architectural drawings and wage rate listings ff 002 "Construction of the Quarry Visitor Center, Correspondence, Correspondence relating to wage rates, invitation for bids for the construction of the QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 66 Quarry Visitor Center (Project No. and Employee Housing (Project No.

WI invitation for bids with mailing list; bid submittals for documents, contract for McCullough Construction, Inc., specifications and approval, submission of shop drawings, steel substitutions, review of foundation problems and corrections, wall foundations, extension of contract, hardware schedules, shop drawing corrections, material samples, inconsistency in plan regarding a partition located in the circular element; a drawing of concrete block details; memos regarding re- submittals, discrepancies between structural and architectural drawings, and concrete color selection.

ff 003 "Construction of the Quarry Visitor Center, Correspondence; Correspondence and memos regarding shop drawings, approval of subcontractor heating and plumbing work, approval of McCullough drawings, colors for concrete materials, Allen Stell Company's shop drawings, thickness of the Visitor's gallery, concrete slab, conference arrangements, limiting authority, conference notes (August 22, prepared by Anshen & Allen; memos regarding the contractor's need for more storage space for materials, request for a time extension; Jess Lombard's inspection construction progress and concerns with noticeable movement in the stair tread of the circular stairway; memos regarding Supervising Architect Jerry Riddell's inspection of construction progress, correction of vibration in supporting roads of the circular stairway, abrasive strips for stair treads, elevations of projections (Top of Ledge) ramp elevation safety hazard, final inspection preparations set for June 1, at the dedication; the final inspection conducted by Engineer William Gropp and by Architect Jerry Riddlel; dedication invitations; memos regarding the substitution of nine porcelain enamel panels on the east elevation of the visitor center for glass panels, a change order to perform curb and gutter work, roof repair, vibration of the balcony slab, furnace problems, leaking of the circular roof and water damage, inspection of the leaking roof, and an architectural drawing of the proposed change in roofing over circular element.

DINO "Construction of Exhibit Furring in Quarry Visitor Center, ff 001 Construction Project, Contract No This project was contracted to Ashton Brothers, Inc.; it entailed construction and installation of exhibit furring in the Quarry Visitor Center, specifically, it involved alterations and improvements to the exhibit room in the Quarry Visitor Center. The other contract listed under the Completion Report for this project includes Contract No. McCullough Construction Company). This contract and the Ashton Brothers, Inc. contract are headed by the main project title of Project Visitor Center. The Completion Report for this project includes the following Contract Nos. McCullough Construction Company). QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO.

UT-138 page 67 DINO "Construction Project, - Contract No This project was contracted to General Conveyor Inc. and entailed construction of a traveling working scaffold for the Quarry Visitor Center. The scaffold was intended to move easily along the quarry face and was conceived prior to the design of the visitor center.

Completion report, correspondence, notices, bid and contract documents, specifications, wage rate documents pertaining to the construction and installation of a traveling working scaffold in the Quarry Visitor Center, contracted to General Conveyor Inc, in under Contract No This particular project is part of a larger collection identified under Accession No which encompasses the development of the Quarry Visitor Center that occurred between The Completion Report for this project includes: Contract No. McCullough Construction Company).

DINO 588 "Stabilization of Yampa District Maintenance and Headquarters Buildings and Quarry Visitor Center from This collection consists of the contract documents, correspondence, drawings, details, notes, reports and other materials related to the stabilization of the Yampa District Maintenance Building, Headquarters Building and Quarry Visitor Center from Box 1 (Series 1: Maintenance, Headquarters, and Quarry Visitor Center, ff 001 Memorandums: ff 002 Memorandums: January 1989-July Memorandums: August 1989-December ff 004 Memorandums: January 1990-November ff 005 Polaroids: Quarry Visitor Center, "Settlement/Movement of Yampa District Maintenance Building, Headquarters Building, and Quarry Visitor Center - Correspondence regarding the movement of the Quarry Visitor Center addresses problems of water leaks, the breaking of windows, waterline breaks, and water distribution (sewer and drainage).

Recommendations include: improvement of the roof drainage system; alignment of the roof sweeps; repair of waterlines and entrance walk, gallery deck/south roofrepair; reconstruction of the sanitary sewer and storm sewer; monitoring of building movement; development of a domestic water supply system Earliest efforts to examine the structural problems were done by Dames & Moore Geotechnical engineering study (exploratory drilling of thirteen borings by QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 68 Chen Northern) of the Quarry Visitor Center was completed as part of the stabilization and repair of Package Project Type 15A.

ff 002 "Quarry Visitor Center, Headquarters Building & Maintenance Buildings: Correspondence, Reports, and Estimates This folder contains: correspondence regarding various trip reports investigating then-current conditions of the three structures and recommendations, the structural integrity of the buildings, stabilization and repair; Package No. handwritten notes; work session summary sheet; building monitoring system tasks for safety; request for geotechnical professional services; water distribution; cost estimates; plans for FY plan meeting; status reports for three buildings project proposals; briefing statements; and responses/comments to correspondence.

ff 003 "Quarry Visitor Center: Correspondence, - This folder contains correspondence regarding: 1) early damage to the Visitor Center due to leaks, settling, breaking of windows, waterline breaks; and recommendations such as emergency repairs, improved roof drainage system, alignment of main columns/roof sweeps, repair of sewer and water lines and entrance walk; 2) temporary repairs by Max Rasussen; 3) Visitor Center inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places; and 4) stabilization survey/assessment by Denver Service Center Engineering Team and first mention of Package S02 "Stabilize and Repair Quarry Visitor Center." Also included are trip reports for inspection of building movement and damage and an inspection report by the DSC Engineer describing the building, two proposals for emergency repairs, existing conditions, site geology, condition of the exhibit area, condition of the entrance ramp, condition of employee/lab area, condition of the Visitor contact portion, surrounding site conditions, and recommendations.

ff 004 "Quarry Visitor Center: Correspondence, - This folder contains correspondence regarding the following topics: 1) the integrity of water, sewer and drain piping; 2) closure of the entrance ramp; 3) the gallery deck/south roof repair alternatives; 4)Package S02 "Rehab/Reconstruct Quarry Visitor Center;" 5) building observations/monitoring; 6)geotechnical investigations; and 7) alternatives for ballasting roof beams and pilaster anchors. Also included are: 1) various trip reports to excavate and inspect subsurface conditions, drilling operations, gallery supports; 2) a report addressing drainage and utility service lines; 3) a monthly work schedule; 4) an amendment form involving the Landplan Design Group's geotechnical services; 5) and a project description.

ff 005 "Quarry Visitor Center: Proposal and Investigative Report by Dames & Moore, This folder contains the proposal and investigative report both entitled "Investigative Studies Adverse Settlement Visitor Center Building" by Dames & Moore. This project involves five test borings drilled in and around the Quarry Visitor Center. ff 006 This folder contains correspondence regarding fee estimates, limitations and changes to the requested scope of services. Handwritten notes regard contract QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 69 negotiations with Chen Northern for geotechnical services. Also included is the final report entitled "Geotechnical Engineering Study Distress to Quarry Visitor Center Dinosaur National Monument, Utah," dated December 8, prepared for the Landplan Group.

ff 007 "Quarry Visitor Center: Design of Utilities, This folder contains five copies of a memorandum regarding the "meeting to coordinate engineering disciplines in the design of utilities for the Dinosaur National Monument Quarry Visitor Center. Specifically, the memo discusses the reconstruction of the sanitary sewer and storm sewer and development of a domestic water supply system. Each copy contains different annotations indicating various stages of completion. ff 008 "Quarry Visitor Center: Drain and Sewer Drawings and Computations, This folder contains drawings and computations of and for the drains and sewer system located at the Quarry Visitor Center. Drawings feature the flooring, new sash, restroom/showers, and mechanical room.

Computations are of dimensions of manhole-to-manhole, locations of sanitary sewer waste stack, sewer gradient, intercept of foundation and sewer line. ff 009 "Quarry Visitor Center: Entrance Ramp Drawings and Computations, This folder contains drawings and computations of and for the entrance ramp located at the quarry Visitor Center. Drawings feature shoring, coordinates and horizontal alignment and the structural analysis of the ramp. Computations are of bridge geometry and layout and structural evaluation. ff 0 10 "Quarry Visitor Center: General Monitoring Data, Drawings, Computations, Etc. This folder contains various types of materials such as details, monitoring data, computations, elevations, cross-sections and drawings that entail problem areas of the Quarry Visitor Center.

Some of these areas include the south wall of the visitor center, the south wall of the labs and conference room, the temporary roof ballast, columns, gallery supports, pilaster cracks, south wall Whittmore points, and the east face pilaster 6. ff 0 11 "Quarry Visitor Center: Package S02 Project Proposal Stabilization and Repair." This folder contains six versions of a proposal for Package Project Type 15A, Quarry Visitor Center Stabilization and Repair. ff 012 "Quarry Visitor Center: Foundation Monitoring Field Notes, Contains photocopies of pages from a field notebook monitoring the movement of the Quarry Visitor Center. Monitoring spots include the north foundation wall, pilaster bolts, south wall, rotunda wall, the ramp, and the top for the gallery columns.

ff 013 "Quarry Visitor Center: Water Monitoring of Drill Holes, Records of water levels found in geotechnical drill holes for through ff 026 "Quarry Visitor Center, Maintenance and Headquarters: Water, Sewers and QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 70 Drains, Water and wastewater field evaluation (plus draft) of for the quarry building, maintenance building, and headquarters building. Also included is a portion of a project description for sewer line cleaning and inspection. ff 027 "Product/Services Information." Product and services information amassed while conducting research and/or actual project activities. Such products and services include window film, turnbuckles, grouting and geotechnical services.

ff 028 "Weather Records, Weather summary for and records of river and climatological observations taken at the Quarry for ff 029 "Quarry Visitor Center: Drawings." Contains the following drawings: "Existing Parking Area," Quarry Site, topo sheet 1 of 1. "Plan at Lower Quarry Visitor Center," 1 sheet "Quarry Area Utilities," NM-DINO/3122, sheet 1. "Reconstruction of Visitor Center," NM-DIN/3149-C, sheet 1 of 3. "Reconditioning Road Parking Areas & resurfacing Visitor Center Road Plan," Drawing No. 122/41024A, dated sheets 21, 23 and 24 of 36. "Rehab Quarry Water," dated complete set of 4. "Repairs to Visitor Center," NM-DIN/3330A, dated sheets 3-4 of 6. Untitled topographic map with annotations.

Untitled drawing showing waterlines, annotated, 1 sheet Untitled drawing showing the waterline to the Visitor Center, sheet 2 of 6. "Utility Building," location: Quarry Site, NM-DIN/3114-C, dated April 29, sheets 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 of 9 sheets. "Visitor Center," NM-DIN/3102-E, dated November 29, complete set of 30 sheets (plus annotated sheets). ff 032 "Quarry Visitor Center, Maintenance and Headquarters: Drawings." "Repair Buildings, location: Dinosaur Quarry Area." NM-DIN/2046-A, annotated date of complete set of 2 pages (one annotated sheet), plus one duplicate annotated sheet. JV A, Inc.

"Dinosaur National Monument Quarry Visitor Center: Life-Safety Monitoring Report." Summarizes findings of a site visit in May Identifies a number of potential life safety hazards and serviceability concerns, most notably a concern that the administrative wing could collapse in a strong earthquake. This site visit was cited in the closing of the building. See also the second report, in the Denver Service Center Technical Information Center collection. National Park Service. "Final Environmental Impact Statement/Assessment of Effect for the Quarry Visitor Center Treatment Project: Record of Decision." Chooses Alternative B to rehabilitate or replace the Exhibit Hall and construct a new visitor center and administrative facility off site.

See also the Final Environmental Impact Statement in the Denver Service Center Technical Information Center collection. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 71 2. Historic Maps & Drawing Collection, ACC CAT Anshen & Allen Architects. "Visitor Center Quarry Site." NM: DIN 3102-E.

A-1 or 30 Interior Material & Finish Schedule, Door Schedule & Drawing Index; includes legend A-4 of 30 Section through Building A-5 of 30 Exterior Elevations A-7 of 30 Plans of Circular Element A-9 of 30 Exterior Details of Exhibit Shelter & Low Office Wing A-10 of 30 Miscellaneous Details at Exhibit Shelter & Low Office Wing A-11 of 30 Exterior Details-Circular Element A-12 of 30 Miscellaneous Details-Circular Element A-13 of 30 Stair Details A-14 of 30 Door Details A-15 of 30 Alternate #1 S-2 of 30 Foundation Details & Schedule S-3 of 30 Roof & Floor Framing Plans & Details S-7 of 30 Typical Cross Section & Details S-9 of 30 Alternate #1 & details M-1 of 30 Mechanical Plot Plan M-2 of 30 Lower Level Plumbing & Air conditioning Plan & Details M-3 of 30 Upper Level Air Conditioning Plan & Details E-1 of 30 Electrical Lower Level Plan & Details According to index, missing sheets: A-2 Plan at Lower Level A-3 Plan at Upper Level A-6 Exterior Elevations A-8 Interior Elevators & Case Work S-1 Foundation Plan & Notes S-4 Roof & Floor Framing Plans & Details S-5 Framing Details S-6 Framing Details S-8 General Notes & Miscellaneous Details M-4 Boiler Room Plan & Details E-2 Electrical Upper Level Plan & Details NM-DIN-3102-E, File Unit I.

Sheet 5-4 through 5-6 of 30; any other sheets in this group missing 2. Sheet 5-4 of 30; Roof & Floor Framing Plan with Details 3. Sheet 5-5 of 30; Framing Details 4. Sheet 5-6 of 30; Framing Details "Visitor Center Quarry Site." NM-DIN-3102-B, File Unit QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 72 1. Sheet A-3 of 30; Plan of Upper Level 2. Sheet A-4 of 30; Section A: A-4 through building 3. Sheet 16 of 30; Foundation Plan & Notes 4. Sheet 17 of 30; Foundation Details & Schedule 5. Sheet 22 of 30; Typical Cross Section & Details "Visitor Center Quarry Site." NM-DIN-3102-E, File Unit 20. 1. Electrical lower level plan & details 2. Electrical upper level plan & details 3. General notes-Miscellaneous details "Visitor Center-Quarry Site." File Unit 22.

NM-DIN-3102-E; Sheets Al-A2, A5-A15, of 30, missing sheets NM-DIN/3102F; Sheets 2, 3 of 3, missing sheet 1, Exhibit Layout. NM-DIN3102G; Sheets 2 of 2, Visitor Center Quarry Site NM-DIN3330A; Sheets 1, 5, 6 of 6; missing sheet 2, 3 35 sheets. "Exterior Painting Limits-Visitor Center, Quarry Site." 1. Exterior Elevations (areas to be painted) north, south 2. Exterior Elevations (areas to be painted) west, east 2 sheets. "Exhibit Layout Visitor Center Quarry." NM-DIN-3102-F. 1. Al of2 Architectural Plan and Elevations, Working Drawing 2. A2 of 2 Miscellaneous Architectural Details 3. E 1 of 1 Electrical Lower Level Plans and Details 3 sheets.

"Exhibit Layout, Visitor's Center, Quarry Site." NM-DIN-3102-F, File Unit Sheet 1 of 3; Architectural Plan & elevations of the exhibit layout in the visitor's center. Includes general notes on exhibit details. Missing sheets 2 - 3 of 3. 1 sheet. National Park Service. "Preliminary Sketch for Museum Building: Dinosaur National Park." File Unit 18. Shows floor plan, ceiling plan, wall elevations, cross sections. 1 sheet. "Vicinity Map." NM-DIN/4942, File Unit 8. Annotated in red pencil on blueprint. Additional annotations in red pencil on contour map of quarry (also contains a vicinity map showing quarry area). 1 sheet. "Preliminary Drawing for Museum Building at Dinosaur National Monument." NM-DIN-3-A, File Unit 17. Floor Plan and Section drawing. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO.

UT-138 page 73 File Unit 431 1. Map 1 of 7; Revised alignment plan, revised grade, profile. 2. Map 2 of 7; Plan, Plan, Plan Elevation, Step detail, Elevation, Details of culvert headwall section, details of combination manhole & catch basin, end spacers (cast iron) Section Section D-D plan, Frame and grating for catch basins, typical curb and walk section, plan of parking area showing grades and engineering data. 3. Map 3 of 7; Plan, typical road cross section, section of lined channel showing culvert entrance, plan, plan elevation, step detail, section details of catch basin to be used in parking area, section details of manhole, plan details of catch basin to be used on road, local depression at catch basin, longitudinal section of catch basis showing local depression.

"Traveling Working Scaffold, Quarry Site."NM-DIN-3136-A, File Unit 75. Shows section E-E, Typical cross section of building, Section 1 sheet. "Upper Entrance Lobby Floor Plan, Quarry Visitor Center." File Unit 19. 2 copies of sheet 1, first is original pen and ink, second is diagotype print of the original drawing. Sheet 2 is missing. Exhibit Plans. First original. 1 sheet contains original Superintendent Earl M. Semingsen's signature. NM-DIN-D-4904, File Unit Photo copy of original map. Shows 40 acres "urgently recommended for inclusion in National Monument and another three 40 acres recommended for inclusions." 1 sheet.

"Dinosaur National Monument/Quarry Visitor Center/Drains and Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation." File Unit All drawings are annotated in red marker with the word "preliminary" across the front. Sheets are not numbered. These are written in; Sheets are possible A through D. 1. Sanitary and Storm Sewers-Locations in Quarry Visitor Center 2. Drains & Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation-Plan & Details. 3. Rehabilitation of Drains & Sanitary Sewer-Bathroom plumbing plan; sections; partial elevation 4. No title-Plan of new utilities in visitor center with details. All drawings are annotated with slight changes or corrections. "Laboratory Exhaust Systems." File Unit 1. Sheet 1 of 2; Roof plan; South elevation; Section A-A; Fan includes equipment [schedule] 2.

Sheet 2 of 2 Details; Electrical schematic makeup air fan electrical schematic, exhaust fan F-3 electrical schematic recirculation fan electrical plan laboratory exhaust system sequence of operation. "Existing Conditions Site Plan Historic Structure Report." NM-DIN- File Unit 13. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 74 Sub Sheet No Ll, Site map of visitor center area, Drawing based on survey, field checked in and no longer a survey drawing but a graphic representation showing current conditions. Denver Service Center. "Water and Sewer System Improvements/Quarry Area/Dinosaur National Monument." Project No. - 1. Sheet 1 of 18; Cover sheet; site map showing this project site; inset vicinity map; legend & index. 2. Sheet 3 of 18; utility plan, water 3.

Sheet 4 of 18; water reservoir plan & electrical quarry area. 4. Sheet 5 of 18; gallon Reservoir-Quarry area 5. Sheet 6 of 18; Water valve Chamber & Piping-Quarry area 6. Sheet 7 of 18; Chlorination & Pump Building Layout Residential and Maintenance Area 7. Sheet 10 of 18; Utility details-Quarry Residential Area 8. Sheet 12 of 18 Aerated Lagoon Plan-Quarry Residential Area 9. Sheet 13 of 18; Profiles-Sewer Lines A, B, and C Quarry & Residential Area 10. Sheet 14 of 18; Sewage Lagoon Sections-Quarry & Residential Area 11. Sheet 16 of 18; Miscellaneous Lagoon and Fence Details Quarry & Residential Area 12. Sheet 17 of 18; Mechanical-Pump Room Addition Missing sheets: 2, 8, 9, 11, 15 and 18 "Paint Quarry." NM-DIN-122/00030. 1. Paint Quarry-cover sheet 2. West, East-Elevations 3.

North, South-Elevations 4. Interior, 4 Sheets "Water/Sewer Reconstruction Quarry Visitor Center," File Unit 90 and File Unit NM-DIN-122/80045. 1. Sheet 1 of 2; Foundation and Utility Plan; Foundation Elevation; Section K. 2. Sheet 2 of 2; Sections and Details. 2 Sheets. Dinosaur National Monument. ca. "Traveling Working Scaffold Quarry Visitor Center." NM-DIN-3136, File Unit Elevation view with detail annotated in blue pencil. Dinosaur National Monument. "Motorization of Working Scaffold Quarry Visitor Center." NM-DIN-3136-C, File Unit 12. Annotated in pencil "working drawing." Shows side view of gantry crane, side view of working scaffold, list of procedures for this project. Dinosaur National Monument.

"Motorization of Working Scaffold/Quarry Visitor Center/Dinosaur National Monument." NM-DIN-3136D, File Unit Key map of Dinosaur National Monument, side view of gantry crane, side view of working scaffold, includes notes. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 75 Dinosaur National Monument. 7, 8, "Dinosaur National Monument Quarry Visitor Center Book Store." File Unit 204 Dinosaur National Monument. Visitor Center/Dinosaur National Monument." NM-DIN122/80045, File Unit 90. 1. Map 1 of 2; Foundation & Utility Plan, Section, Foundation Elevation, Attachment. 2. Map 2 of2; Detail, section. 2 sheets. Dinosaur National Monument. "Paint Visitor Center, Quarry Site, Dinosaur National Monument." NM-DIN-122/80060, File Unit 1.

Sheet 1 of 6; Site of map of DINO NM showing location of this project; vicinity map; legend; index. 2. Sheet 2 of 6; Plan; lower level 3. Sheet 3 of 6; Plan-upper level; includes building descriptions 4. Sheet 4 of 6; Paint & Finish schedule, Interior work changes in the chart are highlighted with orange. Division of Design and Construction. Western Office. "Traveling Working Scaffold-Visitor Center/Quarry Site/Dinosaur National Monument." File Unit Working drawing. Division of Design and Construction. Western Office. "Reconstruction Visitor's Center Plaza Dinosaur Quarry." NM-DIN-3149-B, File Unit File Unit 2, and File Unit 11. 1 of 3; Plan view. 2 of 3; Includes walk & ramp extension, cobble slab, aluminum hand rail, view terrace 3 of 3; Includes subsurface drain, roof drain.

Division of Design and Construction. Western Office. "Reconstruction Visitor Center Plaza/Dinosaur Quarry Area/Dinosaur National Monument." NM-DIN- File Unit 5. Division of Design and Construction. Western Office. Branch of Engineering. "Visitor Center Audio-Visual Facilities." NM-DIN File Unit 1. Sheet 1 of2; Plan of Upper level and Lower level; includes notes and work accomplished list 2. Sheet 2 of 2; Typical placement of upper & lower level speakers; one line diagram of wiring; detail of headphone terminal boards; mounting of microphone jack on pipe; speaker housing-Upper level; materials list. 2 sheets. Interpretive Design Center. Exhibit Planning and Design. Harpers Ferry.

3, 4, "Dinosaur National Monument Quarry Visitor Center Concept Exhibit Plan, May File Unit QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 76 18 sheets. Interpretive Design Center. Exhibit Planning and Design. Harpers Ferry. "Dinosaur National Monument Quarry Visitor Center, Final Exhibit Plan, June File Unit 16. 61 sheets, cover and sheets of 61. Interpretive Design Center. Exhibit Planning and Design. Harpers Ferry. 11, "Concrete Pad-Railing Drawings [Visitor's Gallery]," File Unit Memorandum from: Exhibit Designer, Division of Exhibit, Planning and Design, to: Chief of Interpretation, Dave Whitman. Midwest Region. Maintenance Division.

"Repair Visitor Center Plaza; DINO Quarry Area." NM-DIN-2046, File Unit Site plan of Quarry Visitor Center identifying office repairs to be made to windows, roof, pipes, drainage and septic; includes summary of work in this contract. Working drawing. Midwest Region. Maintenance Division. "Repair Building, Dinosaur Quarry Area." NM-DIN-2046-A, File Unit 74, and File Unit As Built. 1. Site plan of visitor center showing work completed under contract a. Regraded ground on north side of building b. Smoothed surface of joints in pavement slabs in East Plaza c. Revised roof drains to discharge into driveway south of building d. Installed galvanized steel pipe for roof drainage in south driveway e. Built drain inlet (No. 1) on said pipeline f. Cut French drain into said inlet g.

Installed drainage inlet (No. 2) beneath lower ramp scupper & plugged upper scupper h. Extended galvanized steel pipeline to drain inlet No. 2 i. Repaired boiler room floor drain j. Reglazed 13 damaged windows 2. Elevation Drawing; Quarry Visitor Center drainage line; floor plan. San Francisco Planning & Service Center. "Repairs to Visitor Center/Quarry Site/Dinosaur National Monument." File Unit Map 6 of 6: West, east, exterior elevations. 1 sheet. San Francisco Planning & Service Center. 1. Sheet 2 of 6; Plan at Lower Lobby, Plan at Upper Lobby, elevations and details. 2. Sheet 3 of 6; Section X, Elevation B, and details 3. Sheet 4 of 6; Plan at Upper Level, Plan at Lower Level and operating sash detail Missing sheets 1, 5, and 6 of 6. San Francisco Planning & Service Center.

NM-DIN/3330. 1. Map 1 of 6; note, slip coupling detail, roofing detail. Note: Vicinity map-Dinosaur QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 77 National Monument, roof plan. PRO No-DINS123.2. 2. Map 2 of 6, Elevation C, Elevation A, Elevation B; Plan at Lower Lobby, Mullion & Fix Glass, jamb at frame, steel beam & column framing details, Elevation C, comer mullion & fix Glass, jamb & head, plan at Upper Lobby, Partition Details 3. Map 3 of 6 Detail, Detail & Head, Detail & sill, operating sash detail, upper level, lower level 4. Map 4 of 6; head, jamb, sill, operating sash detail, upper level, lower level. 5. Map 5 of 6; General Plan---Col structural plan-Col Section Section Section Piers, metal door jambs Section W, Plan of East end walL 5 sheets. Robarson, F. R. and Lee Starke.

"Elevation Showing Proposed Crane for Visitor Center/Dinosaur National Monument." File Unit Schematic Drawing of comer brace. 1 Sheet. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 78 3. Administrative Black-and-White Photograph Collection DINO ACC CAT Clemons, W. Quarry Visitor Center. Shows interior construction detail. Quarry Visitor Center. Shows interior view construction detail, looking west from ground level. Quarry Visitor Center. Shows construction detail upper gallery, looking east along upper gallery. Quarry Visitor Center. Shows construction detail interior, looking east on ground floor. Quarry Visitor Center. Shows construction detail interior, looking east on ground floor. Quarry Visitor Center. Shows view east from upper gallery and construction detail. Quarry Visitor Center.

Shows interior construction detail and view west along upper gallery. Quarry Visitor Center" Exterior view west door showing encroachment of rock in alleyway. Quarry Visitor Center. Shows construction detail, lower gallery looking east Quarry Visitor Center. Shows construction detail upper gallery, looking east, Split Mountain. Quarry Visitor Center. Shows construction detail (glass comparison). Interior visitor center. Quarry Visitor Center. Exterior view under construction. Quarry Visitor Center. Interior visitor center. Shows construction detail (glass comparison). Quarry Visitor Center. Shows site from water supply tower and relation to river plain. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 79 Quarry Visitor Center. Shows construction site location from ridge to the east of same.

Quarry Visitor Center. From ridge east of visitor center. Quarry Visitor Center. Shows portion of building visible from road to Split Mountain Gorge. Quarry Visitor Center. Shows partial view of center from Split Mountain Gorge Road Quarry Visitor Center. Shows drainage south side of building. Quarry Visitor Center. Shows interior construction detail (stairs). Quarry Visitor Center. Shows interior construction detail (stairs). Quarry Visitor Center. Shows interior construction detail (heating element). Quarry Visitor Center" Shows interior construction detail (opening at stairs). Quarry Visitor Center. Shows interior construction detail (stairs). Quarry Visitor Center. Shows interior construction detail (west stairs). Quarry Visitor Center.

Shows interior construction detail (drain at east door). Quarry Visitor Center-Circular Element. Exterior view of center under construction. Quarry Visitor Center-Circular Element. Exterior view of center under construction. Quarry Visitor Center-Circular Element. Shows construction details-balcony level looking east. Condon, David De L. Dedication Ceremony-Quarry Visitor Center. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 80 Ken Sowards, Master of Ceremonies, at microphone. Roger Ernst, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. Ernst, featured speaker at Quarry Visitor Center Dedication Dr. LeRoy Kay, Dedication Ceremony, Quarry Visitor Center. Dedication Ceremony-Quarry Visitor Center. Dedication Ceremony-Quarry Visitor Center. Utah Governor George D. Clyde.

Quarry Visitor Center Dedication Ceremony. Von C. Gardner Post, American Legion. Quarry Visitor Center Dedication Ceremony. Von C. Gardner Post, American Legion. Quarry Visitor Center Dedication Ceremony. Von C. Gardner Post, American Legion. Quarry Visitor Center Dedication Ceremony. Roger C. Ernst. Assistant Secretary of the Interior Roger Ernst at Quarry Visitor Center Dedication Ceremony. Dedication Ceremony. Quarry Visitor Center Dedication Ceremony. Superintendent Jess H Lombard. Park Superintendent Lombard at the Quarry Visitor Center Dedication Ceremony. Governor George D. Clyde. Governor George Clyde of Utah at Quarry Visitor Center Dedication Ceremony. Good, J. Constructing Upper Parking Lot at Quarry. Also shows widening of cut for the visitor center building.

Constructing Upper Parking Lot at Quarry. Constructing Upper Parking Lot at Quarry. Constructing Upper Parking Lot at Quarry. Constructing Upper Parking Lot at Quarry. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 81 Also shows widening of cut for the visitor center building. New Quarry Visitor Center under Construction. Quarry Visitor Center. Observation platform east side of parking, showing defective concrete. Quarry Visitor Center Parking Pan. Shows cracks from fill slippage in parking pan. Quarry Visitor Center Parking Pan. Shows cracks from fill slippage in parking pan. Quarry Visitor Center Parking Pan. Shows separation in concrete of parking pan overlook Quarry Visitor Center Parking Pan and Overlook. Shows defect in concrete of overlook due to fill slippage Grunigen, Neil.

Preparation ofBuilding Site and Parking Area Quarry Area. Hamilton, D. L. Exhibits-In Place-Dinosaur Ledge. North wall of Quarry Visitor Center taken for Dr. White, to be used in an article. New Visitor Center. Quarry area. Shows ramp before pouring slab walk. Quarry Visitor Center. Visitor Center as seen form upper parking area. Quarry Visitor Center-Exterior View. Quarry Visitor Center. Interior view looking east, upper floor. Quarry Visitor Center. Exterior view-Lower floor circular element. Quarry Visitor Center-Looking Southwest. Quarry Visitor Center. Interior view looking east-lower floor. Quarry Visitor Center-West Side ofBuilding. Sign-Junction of Quarry and Split Mountain Gorge Road. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 82 Quarry Visitor Center.

Quarry area, exit lobby exhibit #3. Quarry Visitor Center. Shows ramp in relation to circular element. Conrad L. Wirth and Dr. White. Conrad L. Wirth, Director of National Park Service; Dr.White; and Superintendent Lombard of Dinosaur National Monument (left to right). Conrad L. Wirth, Director of National Park Service. Conrad L. Wirth, Director of National Park Service at Quarry Visitor Center. Sign-Junction of US. 40 & State Highway Quarry Visitor Center. Quarry Visitor Center. Gantry Crane. Quarry Visitor Center. Quarry Visitor Center. Quarry Visitor Center Laboratory. Jeffrey, Repairs to Visitor Center Roof 0634A Quarry Visitor Center, Completion Report. Repairs to Visitor Center Roof Quarry Visitor Center, Completion Report.

Repairs to Visitor Center Roof Quarry Visitor Center, Completion Report. Repairs to Visitor Center Roof Quarry Visitor Center, Completion Report. Repairs to Visitor Center Roof 0634E Quarry Visitor Center, Completion Report. Repairs to Visitor Center Roof Quarry Visitor Center, Completion Report. Repairs to Visitor Center Roof Quarry Visitor Center, Completion Report. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 83 Repairs to Visitor Center Roof Quarry Visitor Center, Completion Report. Repairs to Visitor Center Roof Quarry Visitor Center, Completion Report. Repairs to Visitor Center Roof Quarry Visitor Center, Completion Report. Repairs to Visitor Center Roof Quarry Visitor Center, Completion Report. Mebane, R.A. Relieved Boned in Quarry Wall (East End).

Relieved Bones in Quarry Wall (Upper Part, About Center). Relieved Bones in Quarry Wall (East End-Lower Part). Relieved Bones in Quarry Wall (East End-Lower Part). Relieved Bones in Quarry Wall (About Top Center). Quarry Visitor Center. Quarry Visitor Center. Gantry Crane-Quarry Visitor Center. Quarry Visitor Center. Visitor Use Quarry Visitor Center. Visitor Use Quarry Visitor Center. Visitor Use Quarry Visitor Center. Visitor Use Water Damage to Ceiling.from Leaking Roof, Upstairs Lobby. Quarry Visitor Center Ernest Unterman. Picture taken in library at Quarry Visitor Center. Mather Collection (Personnel File). QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 84 Earl M Seingsen. Picture taken in library at Quarry Visitor Center. Mather Collection (Personnel File). Earl M Seingsen.

Picture taken in library at Quarry Visitor Center. Mather Collection (Personnel File). Quarry Visitor Center. Temporary Drinking Water during Failure of Water Supply. Whitmoyer, Theodore F. Plaza Reconstruction at Quarry Visitor Center. Plaza Reconstruction at Quarry Visitor Center. Plaza Reconstruction at Quarry Visitor Center. Plaza Reconstruction at Quarry Visitor Center. P Zaza Reconstruction at Quarry Visitor Center. 07 55 Plaza Reconstruction at Quarry Visitor Center. Plaza Reconstruction at Quarry Visitor Center. Plaza Reconstruction at Quarry Visitor Center. QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS NO. UT-138 page 85 C. National Archives. Central Plains Region, Kansas City, MO. 1. Records of the National Park Service. Record Group 79.

Six boxes in RG 79 contain material pertinent to the Quarry Visitor Center. A finding aid to the group is available online at Box28 665 -46 Colorado River Basin (Dinosaur National Monument) Vols. 1 - 3, Box29 Colorado River Basin (Dinosaur National Monument) Vols. 4 - 6, Box30 665 - Colorado River Basin (Dinosaur Reports) Vols.

1 - 2, - 665 - Echo Park & Split Mountain Dams, (Dinosaur National Monument), Box 172 0-1 Conference Meetings, - 101 History, - 120 Legislation--General - 200 Administration and Personnel, 204 Investigations, - 207 Report of Studies Made of Dinosaur National Monument, Reports, General - Reports - Landscape Architect Typical Development Photographs Notes of Field Reconnaissance, Special Report of the Geology of the Dinosaur National Monument, Box 173 Monthly Reports, - 504 - 04 Maps Master Plans, - Planning and Development Report, 611 Repairs and Improvements - Box 175 616 Withdrawals, - 600 Buildings--General, - 620 - 46 Museums, - 621 Soil and Moisture Conservation, ADDENDUM TO: HABS UT-138 QUARRY VISITOR CENTER HABS UT-138 Dinosaur National Monument U.S.

Highway 40, 8 miles north of Jensen Jensen vicinity Uintah County Utah REDUCED

Copies of Measured Drawings Historic American Buildings Survey

National Park Service Interior Regions 6, 7, and 8 U.S. Department of the Interior West Alameda Parkway Denver, CO