Making the Woods Hole Dome: the Story of R

Falmouth Historical Commission 59 Town Hall Square, Falmouth, MA 02540 Telephone: 508-495-7440 Fax: 508.495.7443 email: [email protected]

Certificate of Appropriateness & FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Administrative Review Application Application # ______Received by Planning Department Application is hereby made for the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness on: under the provisions of Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 40C, as amended.

Please check all the categories that apply: BUILDING CONSTRUCTION: __New __Addition __Renovation DEMOLITION/REMOVAL OF: __Building __Fence __Other:______TYPE OF BUILDING: __Residential __Commercial __Accessory/Other: ______EXTERIOR: __Roof __Siding __Windows __Doors __Other______OTHER STRUCTURES: __Fence __Wall __Flagpole __Lighting __Other______SIGN: __Please attach a completed “Town of Falmouth Sign Permit Application”

PROPERTY ADDRESS:______MAP # ______

PROPERTY OWNER’S NAME:______PHONE ______

OWNER’S SIGNATURE:______DATE ______

CONTRACTOR/AGENT:______PHONE ______

MAILING ADDRESS:______

Please provide a brief description of the proposed work:

Documents attached: Scaled drawings and photographs ___ addendum of existing conditions and ___ photographs proposed work must be provided. ___ material and/or color samples Incomplete applications will not be considered. ___ scaled architectural drawings

If you think that your proposal qualifies for administrative review and does not require a hearing before the conditions and Historical Commission, please check the appropriate box below: proposed work must be

___ photographs  I certify that the proposed work is not visible from any public way within the historic district.

provided.  I certify that the proposed work is considered a detail of design, ordinary maintenance, or repair. Incomplete applications will be ___ material and/or color samples not be considered by the Commission. Falmouth Historical Commission Application #______Addendum #1 Specification Sheet

Property Address______Assessor’s ID #______

FEATURE PROPOSED EXISTING Solar Panels Make/Model/Size Chimney Material/Size/Color Roof Type/Material/Size/Color Gutters Type/Material/Color Decking Material/Size/Color Railing Material/Size/Color Balusters Material/Profile/Color Siding Type/Material/Color Windows Style/Size/Material/Color Trim Material/Size/Color/Profile Ornamental Features Material/Size/Color/Profile Shutters Type/Material/Color Doors Type/Material/Color Garage Doors Style/Size/Material/Color Lighting Type: Freestanding or Fixed Fence Type/Material/Size/Color Retaining Wall Material/Size Foundation Type/Material Other

Additional Project Information:

______Falmouth Historical Commission Application #______Addendum #1 Specification Sheet

Property Address______Assessor’s ID #______

Additional Project Information:

______Description of Proposed Work 533 Woods Hole Road Falmouth Historical Commission Certificate of Appropriateness Application Description of Proposed Work

The proposed project is located at 533 Woods Hole Road, a 5.41-acre parcel partially located within the Woods Hole Historic District. The project will include the demolition of the remains of the Nautilus Motor Inn, the preservation of the 1953 Buckminster Fuller geodesic dome located at the southeastern corner of the property, and construction of new residential buildings.

Nautilus Motor Inn

The original twelve motel rooms of the Nautilus Motor Inn were constructed in 1953 to the designs of Falmouth architect E. Gunnar Peterson with additional units added in six phases between 1956 and 1980. The motel consists of three wood framed two-story buildings arranged in a semi-circle facing south toward Falmouth’s harbor. The buildings are constructed with features typical of the mid-century Modern style, including flat roofs, rectilinear forms, flush board siding, and an absence of decorative ornamentation. The motel closed in 2004 and has been vacant since. The buildings are in extremely poor condition; potions of which have collapsed. The project includes the complete demolition of the buildings and their removal from the site.

Buckminster Fuller Dome

The geodesic dome located at the southeast corner of the site is an original design by Buckminster Fuller and was constructed on commission in 1953 as a restaurant for the Nautilus Motor Inn. The dome is the first permanent wood member dome directly designed and overseen by Buckminster Fuller. The wooden dome has two flat-roofed additions extending to the northeast and northwest. While the northeast extension (a.k.a. the kitchen wing) appears to be original, the northwest extension (a.k.a. the entrance wing) dates to around 1975. The restaurant which occupied the dome closed in 2002 and the dome has since fallen into disrepair. The dome will be preserved as a separate free-standing structure independent of the new construction on the site.

The dome structure consists of wood members bolted together with steel angles. The structure of the Dome has been surveyed and documented. Damaged or decayed components and connections will be repaired or replaced as needed, per the enclosed report by Structures North.

The exterior of the dome was originally covered in a translucent mylar skin, tightly wrapped over the structural frame. Later renovations have altered this original skin, replacing it with fiberglass, plexiglass, and layers of paint and elastomeric coatings. These later materials will be removed and new translucent mylar will be installed over the dome frame, consistent with historic photographs of the dome.

As illustrated on the attached plans, the smaller non-original entry wing which extends to the northwest of the dome structure will be removed and the entrance returned to its original configuration of a small entry door with canopy and stone steps. The design is based on the attached historic photographs. A portion of the kitchen wing will be removed with the remainder to be preserved and used as the new accessible entry. A new one-story flat roofed entry porch will be constructed. The concrete block and plywood panel structure will be preserved using the modular sizes and systems of the original. Windows and doors will also follow the modular pattern. 533 Woods Hole Road Falmouth Historical Commission Certificate of Appropriateness Application Description of Proposed Work

New Construction

The project will involve the construction of seven detached buildings of various sizes; including five two- story duplexes; a single, three-story, 13-unit building; and a single three-story 20-unit building. Four of the proposed buildings are located within the boundaries of the historic district: three duplexes (Buildings B, C, and D) and the three-story 13-unit building (Building E). The site will retain two entrances, with paved driveways and parking areas connecting the new buildings. As detailed in the enclosed plans, the buildings will be designed in a modern interpretation of the late 19th and early 20th century Shingle Style commonly found in the Woods Hole community and greater Cape Cod region. Consistent with the Shingle Style, architectural elements will include shingle exteriors, broad sloping roofs, divided light window sash, porches, and columned entrance porticos.

Buildings B, C, and D, located at the southwest corner of the site, are two and a half story buildings with broad gable roofs. The buildings will be clad in wood shingles with asphalt roofs. Building E, located at the center of the site and adjacent to the Fuller Dome, is a three-story building topped by a broad gambrel roof and gambrel roofed projecting bays. The rectilinear building is oriented with its narrow end facing south toward Woods Hole Road. Similar to Buildings B, C, and D, the building will be clad in wood shingles and an asphalt roof. Specific materials for the buildings are as follows:

 Siding will be white cedar shingles stained gray to weather.  Trim will be long lasting Boral and pre-primed pine crowns and moldings will be pre-primed – painted white.  Columns will be fiberglass Doric 10” and 12” diameter – painted white.  Roofing material will be 50 year architectural asphalt shingles – black.  Gutters and flashing will be white aluminum 5” k-style with 3” smooth round downspouts – white.  Windows will be Anderson 400 Series – simulated divided lite – black.  Decks will be mahogany with long-lasting Azek and mahogany railings and newels, painted white.  Terraces and entries will be bluestone - mortar set.  Walkways will be brick and bluestone – sand set.  Sidewalks will be concrete.  Ventilation to be hidden in “chimneys” and cupolas and behind wood louvers.  Parking to be below buildings. Only visitor parking at front of buildings for minimal paved areas.  Garage doors to be wood carriage style, painted white.

Historic Views Fuller Dome, 533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Historic Views

Fuller Dome, 533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Historic Views

Fuller Dome, 533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Historic Views

Fuller Dome, 533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Historic Views

Fuller Dome, 533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Historic Views

Existing Conditions Photographs 533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Dome (left) and kitchen ell (right) 533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Dome 533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Entrance ell (left) and dome (right) 533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Entrance ell 533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Kitchen ell 533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Kitchen ell (left) and entrance ell (right) 533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Kitchen ell 533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Nautilus Motor Inn structures 533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Site conditions 533 Woods Hole Road, Falmouth, Massachusetts

Existing Conditions Site conditions Structures North Report

8 September 2019

Doug Kelleher Epsilon Associates, Inc. 3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250 Maynard, Massachusetts 01754

Reference: Buckminster Fuller Geodesic Dome Conditions Survey Update

Dear Doug,

On July 26th, 2018 and August 20th, 2019, Stephanie Davis and Sara Alinia from our office visited Buckminster Fuller Geodesic Dome located in Woods Hole, Massachusetts to complete a visual inspection of the dome. The purpose of the visit was to investigate the overall structural stability of the overall dome and the individual members’ integrity. Between the site visits, the existing hung ceiling, duct work and sprinkler pipes were removed to allow a view of the full dome interior from the ground. For the purposes of this report, Woods Hole Road runs east-west with the main entrance to the dome located on the north elevation.

General Description The dome, which is an original design of Buckminster Fuller, was built in 1953, by students from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and other universities during the summer, according to an inspiring 2018 IASS article, “Construction History of Fuller’s Timber Dome at Woods Hole” contributed to by Robert Mohr, a copy of which is attached in this submission. Fuller himself supervised the construction of the building. The dome has 2 extensions on the north-east and north-west directions, which were used as part of the restaurant facilities.

The dome structure is constructed of 1½”x8” wood struts, arranged in diamond-shaped modules, with steel hubs and bolts, which fasten the struts together at points of connection. The struts are cut at approximately 125 inches and positioned into 2 types of diamonds, referred to here as the “Red” and “Green” modules based upon the color of the plastic exterior cladding. These modules are shown in Figure 1.

1 Buckminster Fuller Dome 8 September 2019 Woods Hole, MA Structures North

The connection between the dome and the eastern extension, referred to herein as the “kitchen wing” appears to be original to the construction. The roof intersection of the wing was designed and located where the struts of the green modules are horizontal allowing them to be fully supported by the wing’s roof, greatly minimizing alternation of the dome structure allowing a clear path for the loads on the dome to reach the foundation. In addition to the roof intersection, there is a relatively large stone chimney which provides both vertical support and lateral bracing to the surrounding structure. The northern extension, referred to herein as the “entrance addition”, was added later. The original door at this location was substantially smaller than the existing opening, which we understand was saw-cut through the three- dimensional dome in order to create the larger opening.

The exterior shell of the dome is made out of glazed panels, which appear to have been coated with the red and green coloring during renovations to the dome.

Dome Geometry The dome, which is approximately 52 feet in diameter, is covered with modular diamonds as shown in Figure 1. This modular arrangement is different from that of a more typical Geodesic dome in the way that it’s not comprised of triangles, but rhombi (diamond shapes). These diamonds have a large surface area, therefore there are wooden mullions running in 3 directions, creating supporting “mesh” for the panels. These mullions also act as bracing to prevent the angle between the struts from changing. The frequency of these mullions varies and is higher in the modules we have shaded red than the ones we have shaded green in Figure 1, on the next page.

According to an eloquent description from the 2018 IASS article, the panels were each pre- constructed in an empty Chemistry Lab at MIT and then shipped down to the site. According to the article, in order to maintain the shapes of the “rhombic hypar panels before the full dome structure was complete, temporary tension cables were strung between the interior corners of the panels”.

When looking at the dome, one can read visually the overall conglomerated semispherical geometry, which is defined by the primary boundary members of each panel. However,

2 Buckminster Fuller Dome 8 September 2019 Woods Hole, MA Structures North

Figure 1 between these primary members, which appear like ridges from the exterior, the panel surfaces between the ridges in some places appear to sag. This is due to the warped romboid geometry of the panels which has rotated the mullions that run in the same directions as the panel edges out of parallel Figure 2 with each other and forced the transverse mullions to bend (please see Figure 2). It is this spring-loaded effect that required 3 Buckminster Fuller Dome 8 September 2019 Woods Hole, MA Structures North the temporary cables since the panels would have a natural tendency to snap back to a planar condition.

Global Dome Stability Analysis and Recommendations The dome has been standing for more than 60 years and according to our 3-D analysis is globally stable.

We accessed the “Woods Hole Dome” 3D sketch-up model that is listed as Reference 15 in the 2018 IASS report and converted it to a “GRASSHOPPER + RHINO model and using a KARAMBA3D plug-in were able to run deflection and stress analysis on a relatively accurate representation of the dome’s geometry.

We analyzed the structure for an assumed self-weight of 10 pounds per square foot (psf) plus up to another 10 psf for cladding. We then considered a 30 psf snow load on the vertically projected surfaces. This resulted in a maximum vertical deflection at the center of the dome of 2.29 inches for dead load and a total 4.05 inches with snow.

Interestingly, according to their 2018 article a similar analysis had been performed by the IASS team, and reported a peak deflection of 4.25 inches, with correlates quite closely with ours. The IASS article goes on to state that the total deflection measured on-site was 5.5 inches, however this presumably was not taken with 30 psf of snow on the roof, therefore the measured vs theoretical deflection is actually 5.5” (measured) – 2.29” (analytical) = 3.2 inches, meaning that the structure has experienced some long-term creep and/or inelastic deformation as well as presumed slippage in the bolted node connections.

4 Buckminster Fuller Dome 8 September 2019 Woods Hole, MA Structures North

We also analyzed the dome for a wind load of 50 psf, which resulted in a maximum drift deformation of 1.14 inches.

We also looked at stress levels within the primary members and found inappropriately high, 2,667 psi axial load stresses within some of lower primary strut members, particularly within the zones that flank that large opening to the kitchen wing. We did not consider the chimney or the kitchen roof acting as supports, so our analysis may be unnecessarily taxing on these members, given the secondary support that the roof and chimney likely provide. It is for this reason that we recommend that the chimney not be removed.

Going forward, we see no reason, given the reasonable nature of the design, that any significant, global reinforcing of the structure is needed. That being said, we do have the following recommendations for strengthening on a local level: D1. Restore the original framing configuration within the vicinity of the east entrance or create a more rational configuration that takes into account the global structural geometry of the dome. D2. Further investigate and improve, if needed, the support and restraint condition of the dome at the kitchen wing interface and more accurately account for this in the structural model. D3. With the model updated per items 1 and 2, above, identify the most heavily loaded struts and provide discrete reinforcement, such as hidden plates or sisters, to bring the “weak links” in the structure closer to the overall safety factor of the whole. D4. Be certain that any modifications and reinforcements maintain the global integrity and design intent of the structural functioning of the dome.

Structural Condition of Dome and Recommendations Based upon our visual observations, the primary structure of the dome shows little outward sign of damage, other than for a few discrete members and for reversable alterations others have done to the structure since its original construction, such as enlarging the east entrance.

We noted damage on the following members: • Five mullions are broken due to apparent bending or compression.

5 Buckminster Fuller Dome 8 September 2019 Woods Hole, MA Structures North

• Three struts are broken due to apparent bending or compression. • Two struts have separations between the paired half-members. • One mullion is split. • One strut is split. • Ten mullions are rotted. • Five struts show signs of rot. • Two hubs have loose connections.

Given the pioneering nature of the construction and more than half-century uneventful service life of the dome, the above damage should be considered an extremely successful and restorable structure, having suffered only relatively minor damage during its more than half- century of service.

We have the following recommendations to bring the dome back up to a state of good repair:

D5. We recommend that the present cladding system be removed to reveal the entire structure so that the top surfaces of all of the primary members, now hidden, can be inspected and borate preservative treated. Any additional rot-damaged members can then be identified and repaired or replaced in like-kind. D6. Analyze all broken mullions and struts to determine whether the damage was caused by structural overload, either from local or from global stress conditions. Repair or replace the damage members and reinforce them as appropriate if determined necessary. D7. Re-fasten the separated strut members and determine whether the separations are material- or load-related (please see above). D8. Examine the split mullion and strut in light of the loads that are on them to determine the causes of the splits. Repair or replace the members and reinforce them if the splits were caused by localized overload or forced deflections. D9. Replace all rotted members in like-kind. D10. Re-tighten the loosened hub connections.

6 Buckminster Fuller Dome 8 September 2019 Woods Hole, MA Structures North

Kitchen Wing Description, Noted Conditions and Recommendations The basement floor of the kitchen wing is a concrete slab on grade, surrounded by concrete block and wood stud walls, supporting a first floor structure composed of 2x12 joists at 24” with fiber composite deck. The roof is constructed with 3 ½” x 11” timber beams supporting a Tectum composite paneled decking system. At the kitchen these beams cantilever past the foundation walls, at each end, creating cantilevered eaves, with no interior support.

The kitchen wing is in generally good condition, with no visible cracks in the decks or damage to the timber beams, beside a few specific locations noted below. We have the following recommendations: K1. Near the dome end of the kitchen wing there is a large tree which appears to be damaging the concrete block foundation as it is cracked from the tree all the way to the dome. The tree should be removed, and the cracked mortar joints should be grout injected. K2. If the existing brick fireplace is to be retained, all the loose and shifted brick masonry should be dismantled and reset. K3. The existing interface of the dome opening at the kitchen addition appears to be materially sound, however the stud knee wall surrounding the interface is partially rotted and should be replaced.

Report Limitations

This report is a summary of readily visible observations conducted during two site visits to the property. No finishes were removed by Structures North to expose hidden structure, and no calculations have been performed, beyond those noted, to determine if the overall building framing or foundations of the structure comply with past or present building codes. This report is strictly limited to structural considerations noted. Egress, guard rails, fire protection, and other building systems were not reviewed, and they are beyond the scope of this report.

Thank you for the opportunity to investigate and analyze, and hopefully help preserve this fascinating and historically important structure.

7 Buckminster Fuller Dome 8 September 2019 Woods Hole, MA Structures North

If you have any questions regarding this report or should need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Respectfully Yours, Structures North Consulting Engineers, Inc.

John M. Wathne, PE, President

8 Supplementary Technical Reports Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design July 16-20, 2018, MIT, Boston, USA Caitlin Mueller, Sigrid Adriaenssens (eds.)

Making the Woods Hole Dome: The Story of R. Buckminster Fuller’s Oldest Geodesic Structure

Robert A. MOHR*, Joseph M. SWERDLIN

*Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Architecture, 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge MA 02139 [email protected]

Abstract In August of 1953, a group of young people assembled in Woods Hole, Massachusetts to build a modest structure on a wooded knoll. They came from diverse backgrounds and from across the country, and they each came inspired by, and dedicated to, the vision of the project’s creative progenitor, R. Buckminster Fuller. Rather than focus on the technical aspects of this unique structure, which are explored by the authors elsewhere, this paper assembles archival research and first-hand accounts, in order to collect and unfold the story of the dome’s creation as a means to understand and record both its historic significance and its broader value as an emblem of the zeitgeist.

Keywords: historic structure, geodesic dome, wood structure, Buckminster Fuller, Woods Hole

Introduction The Woods Hole geodesic dome located in Woods Hole, Massachusetts was designed and constructed in 1953 by a small team of students from universities across the United States acting under the tutelage of R. Buckminster Fuller. It was commissioned by Falmouth architect and aspiring hotelier E. Gunnar Peterson to provide the dining space for the restaurant of the Nautilus Motor Inn. The dome opened in 1954 to tremendous fanfare in the community, and although it was initially derided a modern interloper on traditional Cape Cod, the Woods Hole dome survived early criticism and operated as a successful restaurant for decades. Over those decades, the Dome ultimately became a rather beloved fixture in the village, a destination for special dinners, and a highlight for tourists. Unfortunately, the Woods Hole dome has an uncertain future, having fallen into disuse and disrepair since 2002 when the restaurant closed. The dome, which is the first permanent wood member dome structure that was directly overseen by Buckminster Fuller, stands today as the oldest extant structure credited to Fuller, and it is in a precarious state of preservation.

Figure 1: (Left) The Woods Hole dome on opening day. [E. Joel Peterson]

Figure 2: (Right) The Woods Hole dome in 2017. [Mark Chester]

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

Context Richard Buckminster Fuller, a Massachusetts native born in Milton, is known as one of the most significant design minds of the 20th Century. A committed polymath – part engineer, part architect, part industrial designer – Fuller held a broad and comprehensive worldview that focused resolutely on humanity’s collective future on Planet Earth, and how that future would require “doing more with less.” For decades that spanned the middle 20th Century, “Bucky,” as he was known, inspired a generation of people who were motivated by his pioneering spirit and unique futurist vision. Fuller is credited with numerous inventions, including the geometry of what he is perhaps best known for, the geodesic dome [1]. Geodesics were developed in the late 1940s and early 1950s, during a time that Fuller spent traversing the country leading workshops and lecturing at many institutions, including Black Mountain College, the University of Oregon, University of Minnesota, University of Michigan, Yale, Princeton, Cornell and MIT. This period was enormously prolific for Fuller, thanks to the creative engine of these workshops. Fuller’s residencies at these academic institutions were short, typically lasting one or two weeks. Numerous accounts describe Fuller’s workshops as being packed full of both discourse and experimental creation. Fuller would generally lecture late into the evenings, and the end result of the workshop would involve the students designing and constructing a geodesic structure [2], [3], [4], [5]. Over the course of just a few years, the geodesic experiments of Fuller’s laboratory workshops developed from very early failures to an organized philosophy and a series of successful experiments showing clear potential as a stable and viable structural system. During this workshop period, Fuller applied for a patent on geodesic geometry in 1951, and the patent was granted in 1954 after several domes – including Woods Hole – were realized.

A network makes a dome Fuller never had a single academic home. His worldview and personality worked together to keep Fuller in constant motion – always moving from institution to institution, travelling as a means to inform the most people with the least energy. It is thanks to Fuller’s wandering style that he was able to recruit so many people to his cause. Through his wide-ranging workshops, Fuller had access to a vast, inexpensive, young, and able-bodied workforce of “disciples” [6] that were ready, able, and excited to explore new territory. The network that Fuller developed fueled the proliferation of geodesic domes across the country beginning in the early 1950s, and a parallel proliferation of geodesic- and network- thinking within architecture, engineering, academia, the arts, and society at large. Fuller’s sphere of influence spread across the culture broadly, all the way from the Department of Defense to the counter-culture movement of the 1960s and 1970s. While Fuller is credited with “inventing” and patenting the geodesic dome, the work of designing and building the domes was carried out in large part by a group of motivated devotees, and the case of the Woods Hole dome is no different. As with other early geodesic projects – such as Jeffrey Lindsay in Quebec (1950), Zane Yost at MIT (1951), and the dome at the University of Oregon (1953) – the Woods Hole Dome was drawn and built by over a dozen current and former students who had been participants in Fuller’s university workshops across the country. Unlike these other early works, however, the Woods Hole Dome was a commissioned piece rather than purely academic or experimental. What follows is the most-detailed research to date on this subject.

Timeline E. Gunnar Peterson, a modernist architect practicing in the Woods Hole area, purchased an historic estate in the fall of 1952 to develop into his new motor lodge, and he solicited Fuller to design a dome to serve as the dining room of the restaurant. [7] The project first began at MIT, which was one stop on Fuller’s trans-continental lecture circuit. [8] In the Fall of 1952, while in residence at MIT, Fuller received the commission for the Ford Rotunda, which is known to be the first commissioned geodesic structure. That

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

was completed in the spring of 1953, also by a team of dedicated collaborators. It was in this context that the Woods Hole Dome appeared as Fuller’s second geodesic commission. Little is yet known about the precise timing of the dome’s commission, its design, or the pre-fabrication of its wooden components. Based on various interviews, however, the authors believe that design and pre-fabrication happened in Cambridge, Massachusetts during the months of May, June, and July of 1953. Construction of the dome structure later began on or about August 4, 1953 [6], and lasted until late August of that year [9]. Besides a small test sample, the dome’s initial cladding of Mylar was applied later, most probably in the late winter or early spring of 1954. [10]

Stage 1: Design Peter Floyd, then a student in Fuller’s course, recalled the arrival of the commission by remarking, “Bucky had no office, so he would fling the thing at a bunch of ex-students to see whether they could do anything for him.” [11] This seems to be emblematic of what it was like to operate in Fuller’s early geodesic period. Willing and interested students were readily available to tackle design problems, and the itinerant nature of Fuller’s career defied conventions of practice. What seems undisputable is that the Woods Hole dome was designed and drawn by a few MIT students in the late Spring of 1953. The authors have not yet been able to verify the precise makeup of, or roles within, the design team, but it is believed that the design team consisted of Peter Floyd, Jack Kniskern, and William Wainwright. [12], [13] Based on interviews conducted by the authors and others, many aspects of the dome’s design were left to these individuals, including the wood material, [14] the details of the geometry, [11] and the connections.

Stage 2: Pre-Fabrication The Woods Hole dome took advantage of the potential for pre-fabrication, which had always been a research interest of Fuller’s. Following the dome’s design, the wood components for the dome’s panels were all pre-cut and pre-drilled [11], [4] prior to shipment to the Woods Hole site. This pre-fabrication was undertaken in the chemical engineering shop at MIT, and according to Peter Floyd, the reason that this shop was used stems from a previous relationship. Fuller’s MIT workshop during the fall of 1952 had focused on the design of a tent structure for use on a Ford station wagon. The chemical engineering shop, then located on Vassar Street, was used for that project, and the established relationship allowed for the Woods Hole team to continue using that space during the less-demanding summer months. By this time in the process it was surely the summer months, and photographs show that additional student workers were involved in the pre-fabrication stage. It should be noted that the extent of Fuller’s involvement in the design and pre-fabrication stages of the project is unknown at this time. It is reasonable to assume that he was informed through the process, and the authors believe that further research may lead to a more informed conclusion. What is well- established from photographs and first-hand accounts is that Fuller was an active participant on the project site in Woods Hole.

Stage 3: Erection “We just rented a truck, took it down there, and put it up.” -Peter Floyd [11] The student-driven, entrepreneurial and collective nature of the project continued on site. Students packed the pre-fabricated wood members into a truck and drove to Woods Hole on August 4, 1953 [6], where other recruits had already begun to gather. Some of these students had already been involved in other dome projects that spring and summer, including the Oregon dome, the Ford Rotunda, and the erection of a collapsible dome at the Aspen Design Conference. [15], [11], [4], [16]

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

Figure 2: Arrival of the pre-cut dome components by truck, August 4, 1953. Note the collapsible “Minnesota dome” in the foreground. [Tunney Lee]

The erection of the dome went rather quickly, lasting roughly 2-3 weeks during the month of August. Fuller was on site for much of the construction period in Woods Hole. However, the management of the operation was left to the students, seemingly in the hands of Peter Floyd and Maurice K. Smith, with Smith acting as a construction foreman and Floyd as the organizer/liaison with Peterson. “We had a floating population of workers,” said Floyd in an interview, “There were no more than about 7 or 8 (at a time)...” According to Floyd, there was no written contract for the project, either with Fuller or the student crew. This seems likely, given that Fuller’s company Geodesics, Inc. was barely off the ground as a company, and that MIT and Woods Hole are in close proximity. Students were all paid an hourly wage, and Floyd acted as the “paymaster” receiving money directly from Peterson for distribution to the students for time and materials. [11]

Figures 4 and 5: Assembling of dome panels on the Woods Hole site. [Barry Benepe]

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

A dome makes a network “Among them was a contagious enthusiasm for Mr. Fuller’s ideas. Their eyes light up when they talk about setting architecture free from centuries-old concepts, a revolution against the ‘straight up-and- down’ school, against the confines of ‘hammer and nail construction’, against ‘shed-type architecture.’ Article in the Falmouth Enterprise, August 7, 1953 [6]

Figure 6: Joan Forrester and the parachute used to cover Minnesota dome [17]

The Woods Hole worksite was characterized by a communal, festival-like atmosphere. Students had gathered from all over and they worked together, ate together, went swimming together, and camped together on site. The collapsible dome (developed by students in Minnesota and demonstrated at Aspen) had been erected at the Boston Arts Festival earlier in the summer and was installed on site to serve as the living quarters and workshop for the migrating band of followers. The group attracted much attention when they arrived, and many in the local community came out to visit the worksite and witness the modernist-futurist barn-raising. Others within Fuller’s wide circle of friends and collaborators also came to visit the worksite and contributed to the creative energy, including the filmmaker Robert Snyder and the sculptor Kenneth Snelson.

Figure 7: Robert Snyder (left) and Kenneth Snelson (with camera) on site [18]

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

The nature of the work – assembling boards into panels, maneuvering panels and lifting them into place – was itself very collaborative, and the camaraderie among the workers, and with Fuller, is vivid in how people recollect the experience. The entire project, with the exception of the custom metal brackets, was made of readily available parts – dimensional lumber of a standard variety, nuts and bolts from the local hardware store – and the project was of a size, scale, and nature that it could be assembled by a small group of able-bodied and relatively unskilled workers. These factors were fuel for Fuller’s belief that the re-thinking of habitat could simultaneously involve high-technology, low-skill, and everyday materials. The Woods Hole dome was one key effort in pushing those limits. “Bucky was one of the most fascinating people I ever met in my life,” said Tunney Lee. “He was always tuned to solving problems.” [4] Fuller was clearly the public face of the project, and he was indeed the reason that all these young people had gathered in Woods Hole. They were inspired. They wanted to be a part of something new and revolutionary, and tangible. Not only did Fuller offer them the chance to be involved, but he gave them the reins. To have been given such responsibility by someone of such a stature as Fuller’s would have been rare at the time, and it is no wonder that many of those involved speak so highly of their Woods Hole experience as being transformational. They got a peek at the future, and it energized them. "...there was a 250-watt lightbulb hung from the top of the center of the dome, and it cast shadows of the structure into the fog. We climbed up on it and our bodies were cast like great gods in the sky. that was a very emotional experience for me, and I haven't been able to forget it." -Jack Kniskern [13]

Figure 8: Buckminster Fuller swinging in the Woods Hole dome. [Buckminster Fuller Estate]

A legacy in a network Members of the dome’s design team went on to make significant contributions, and many of them continued working with Fuller and on geodesics. Zane Yost went on to set up Fuller’s work at the Rome Triennale in 1955. Tunney Lee continued with Fuller on truss designs in North Carolina. Peter Floyd and William Wainwright were founding members of Geodesics, Inc. in Cambridge MA, and continued working on domes when they established Geometrics with William Ahern and others. Floyd and colleagues were involved in the creation of the two most famous geodesic domes – the Montreal Expo ’67 dome and the dome at Epcot Center. Wainwright developed the geometry for the so-called “truncated” geodesic dome that was widely employed by the US Government in the DEW Line “radome” project in the 1950s and was a celebrated sculptor later in life. Many of the other students involved would go on to become design professors, including Maurice K. Smith, Tunney Lee, Larry Bissett, Joseph Wehrer, and Joan Forrester Sprague.

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

Buckminster Fuller defied simple definition. The Woods Hole dome and its creation equally defy singularity. It was not the work of one, but of many – a structure built by a network. The most significant contribution of Fuller is not his “invention” or his “genius,” but rather his capacity to inspire. Fuller’s headstone features a favored saying of his – call me trimtab – a reference to a tiny part of a ship or plane that gently changes the vehicle’s course. Fuller liked to think that he was working to shift humanity towards a more stable relationship with the planet. What better way to propagate an idea than to influence a generation of young people to think differently. The argument put forth in this paper is that a structure’s importance can extend well beyond the facts of its historic significance, into a much richer and complex territory of meaning. The Woods Hole dome is clearly historically significant; the fact that it is the oldest extant dome that involved Fuller is evidence enough for that. The work of many, it is a structure that sits precisely at the point where the geodesic project shifted from being a family of academic experiments to a series of tangible and lasting built works. As such, Woods Hole acts as a hinge between experiment and monument, between folly and permanence. The Woods Hole dome embodies the enthusiasm of a generation, individuals motivated to make meaningful contributions, to do more with less, and to bend humanity toward a more sustainable world.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank, some posthumously, all the individuals who were interviewed as a part of the research, including William Ahern, Barry Benepe, Larry Bissett, Peter Floyd, Jack Kniskern, Tunney Lee, Jay Maisel, Maurice K. Smith, and William Wainwright. The authors would like to especially thank Gary Wolf, whose interviews with Ahern, Floyd, and Wainwright greatly informed the research.

References [1] Fuller applied for his first patent on geodesic geometry in 1951, which was approved in 1954. Fuller went on to license this patent to many companies, retaining credit as patent-holder. It should be recognized that other work based on the same geometry of an icosahedron, that of the Zeiss Planetarium in Jena Germany by engineer Walter Bauersfeld, pre-dates Fuller’s patent by roughly 25 years. [2] “1960s: Visionary Fuller brought dome projects to UO,” (2015, Jan. 15). University of Oregon College of Design School of Art + Design News, Eugene, OR. Accessed on: Jan. 24, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://artdesign.uoregon.edu/1960s-visionary-fuller-brought-dome-projects-uo [3] “Bucky Fuller to Design Proposed Hemisphere for Memorial Drive,” (1950, Nov. 21). The Tech, Cambridge MA. [Online]. Available: http://tech.mit.edu/V70/PDF/V70-N47.pdf [Accessed on: April 30, 2018] [4] Lee, Tunney. Interview with Joseph Swerdlin. Personal Interview. Cambridge MA. November 28, 2016. [5] Maisel, Jay. Interview with Robert Mohr. Telephone Interview. March 28, 2017. [6] "Fuller and his Disciples Prepare to Make History with his Plastic Dome," The Falmouth Enterprise, p.1, August 7, 1953. [Online]. Available: http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/APA/Falmouth/. [Accessed April 30, 2018]. [7] No record of the initial contact between Peterson and Fuller has yet been located. It is possible that MIT provided the link, as Peterson was an alum. [8] Records in the MIT Museum collection indicate that Fuller was present on the MIT campus beginning in October of 1950 through early 1953.

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

[9] "Dome Gets the Once-over, Fuller Tells How and Why," The Falmouth Enterprise, p.20, September 4, 1953. [Online]. Available: http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/APA/Falmouth/. [Accessed April 30, 2018]. [10] "Hotel Work Starts," The Falmouth Enterprise, p.3, December 11, 1953. [Online]. Available: http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/APA/Falmouth/. [Accessed April 30, 2018]. [11] Ahern, William, Peter Floyd, and William Wainwright. Interview with Gary Wolf. Personal Interview. January 13, 2006. [12]Floyd, Peter. Interview with Gary Wolf. Telephone Interview. December 19, 2005. [13] Kniskern, Jack. Interview with Robert Mohr. Telephone Interview. April 3, 2017. [14] Smith, Maurice K. Interview with Robert Mohr. Telephone Interview. April 19, 2017. [15] Bissett, Larry. Interview with Robert Mohr. Telephone Interview. October 31, 2017. [16] Benepe, Barry. Interview with Robert Mohr. Telephone Interview. March 22, 2017. [17] T. Lee (1953). Nautilus Motor Inn Dome Restaurant [Image]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Libraries Dome Archive. Accessed on: April 18, 2017. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.3/29948 [18] T. Lee (1953). Nautilus Motor Inn Dome Restaurant [Image]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Libraries Dome Archive. Accessed on: April 18, 2017. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.3/29935

8 Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design July 16-20, 2018, MIT, Boston, USA Caitlin Mueller, Sigrid Adriaenssens (eds.)

Construction and History of Fuller’s Timber Dome at Woods Hole

Joseph SWERDLIN*, Robert MOHR, Paul MAYENCOURT, Andrew BROSE, John OCHSENDORF

*Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Architecture, Cambridge MA 02139 [email protected]

Abstract The geodesic dome built in 1953 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts is the oldest existing Richard Buckminster Fuller geodesic structure in the world, yet very little has been written about it. This paper provides the first known detailed written record of its fabrication and construction. By studying the geometry, member sizes, joint connections, and module assembly of the dome, the structure can be assessed for its overall stability. After standing for 65 years after its completion, this paper offers a reasonable conclusion about the dome’s current structural state to support its preservation for the future.

Keywords: historic structure, structural analysis, geodesic dome, wood structure, Buckminster Fuller, wood dome

1. Introduction The Woods Hole geodesic dome located in Woods Hole, Massachusetts was designed by R. Buckminster Fuller and MIT students early in 1953 and constructed by a team of approximately 10 students from universities across the United States in two months later that summer. It was commissioned by architect and aspiring restaurateur Gunnar Peterson to provide the main dining space for the Nautilus Motor Inn Restaurant, locally known as The Dome Restaurant. It was the first permanent wood member dome structure that was directly designed and overseen by Buckminster Fuller. After over four decades of use, it was quietly abandoned in 2002 when the restaurant closed. Today, it remains as the oldest remaining testament to one of the greatest structural designers of the twentieth century.

Figure 1: Woods Hole Dome in 2004. Photo by J.W. Mavor, Jr [1] Figure 2: Axonometric drawing of Woods Hole dome structure [drawn by author] The dome has not been occupied in recent years and it is now in a precarious state of preservation, with water infiltration causing damage over time. Even with many layers of roof coatings including a fiberglass material installed post-hurricane in 1954 and several layers of liquid-applied coatings (i.e. paint, elastomeric coatings, etc.) added over the past six decades, there are still persistent leaks. This paper seeks to explore the possibility of its preservation by understanding the structure and its stability. To do so, the paper provides insight into the dome’s fabrication, assembly, and construction for future restorations.

Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

2. Research Questions The Woods Hole dome is an inspiring historical structure that stands today as a mid-20th century icon and as a realization of Buckminster Fuller’s utopian ideals. This paper begins with a description of the geometric makeup of the dome and then moves into an explanation of how the ideal geometry was realized in material form. Finally, after the structure is modeled and measured, the paper offers the first assessment of its structural stability.

2.1. What is the geometric makeup of the dome? The geometry of the dome has been drawn by Popko [1] and Mavor [2] in two dimensions but an accurate three-dimensional model of the dome and its members has not been published before this study. This model is vital to be able to fully understand how the structure works and how loads are carried through it. The authors took measurements from the existing structure to create an as-built three-dimensional model. The description of the structure will aid in the future restoration and preservation of the dome.

2.2. How was the dome constructed? While there are clues about the dome’s construction, very little has been written about the dome so this paper consolidates the known information. Currently, there are no definitive descriptions on the way in which the parts of the dome were fabricated, assembled into panels, and installed to create the dome structure. Their precise dimensions have not been recorded as built. The details of the fabrication and construction will shed light on the joint classifications for the structural analysis. This paper uses primary sources, including lectures and writings by Buckminster Fuller, photographs of the construction, and an interview with Tunney Lee, a Professor Emeritus at MIT, who worked on the dome’s construction as a student in 1953, and observations from visiting the dome.

2.1. Is the dome structurally stable? This question is vital to the survival of this structure. The dome is made of Douglas Fir wood members according to Progressive Architecture [3], which over the period of half a century have begun to deteriorate. If the building is to be revitalized and repurposed, it is crucial to understand its current structural state at a global geometric level. In the paper, a model of the existing structure is measured against its ideal geometric form to measure the structure’s deformation. Also, the potential for local buckling is tested in the base members.

4. Woods Hole Geodesic Dome Geometry No design sketches or blueprint drawings remain from the design process and construction of the Woods Hole dome. There is however one instance of a geodesic structure patented by Buckminster Fuller that is very closely related to the Woods Hole dome’s geometric organization. Submitted by Fuller [4] in 1960, the Laminar Geodesic Dome patent drawings use a geometry made of two types of diamond shaped panels. The panels in the patented drawings are more wide though and are faceted since a sheet material is specified in the design as seen in figure 3.

Figure 3: Laminar Geodesic Dome patent drawings by R. Buckminster Fuller [4]

2 Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

The Woods Hole dome has a geometry that also uses two more distinct panel types. The sphere is broken down into two types of rhombic hyperbolic parabolas (rhombic hypars), narrow panels with interior angles of 43.6° and 133.2° and wide panels with interior angles of 70.3° and 107.5° as seen in figures 4 and 5. The outlining members of each unit run along two distinct, flat planes, forming a “bent” rhombus. Interior members individually remain straight, but their collective geometry creates a curve along a hyperbolic parabola. The dome is constructed of 37 structural full rhombic hypar panels; 24 wide panels, 13 narrow panels, 4 halved wide panels cut along the long diagonal, one halved narrow panel cut along the long diagonal, and one halved narrow panel cut along the short diagonal. The halved panels are located along the bottom edge of the dome. There are two openings that follow the geometry of the panels on the southwest and northwest sides of the dome, creating a restaurant entrance and a kitchen entrance, respectively seen in figure 4. The diameter of the dome is 16.5 m (54 feet) and is 8 m (26’- 4”) tall.

Figure 4: Geodesic dome geometry. I. Plan; II. Southeast Elevation; III. Southwest Elevation; IV. Axonometric. Light grey: wide panels; Dark grey: narrow panels

Figure 5: Left: typical wide panel; Right: typical narrow panel

6. Construction After over a decade of research into geodesics through drawing and modeling, R. Buckminster Fuller began to construct geodesic structures in the early 1950s with university students in numerous workshops held across the United States. During these workshops, he would lecture late into the night and expect his students to arrive early in the morning to work on the projects. The projects that Fuller led with students often produced lightweight geodesic dome structures that could be quickly designed, fabricated, and installed. Fuller invented these structures with his students and then oversaw their fabrication and installation. Such was the case with the University of Oregon dome that also was an important precedent for the Woods Hole dome.

3 Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

The Oregon dome was designed and drawn in April 1953 and constructed later in the Spring of 1953 [5], just months before the Woods Hole dome was constructed. The Oregon dome used a geodesic geometry that relied on a singular repeated diamond module made of plywood members as seen in figure 6; a cheap and accessible material solution. The diameter of this dome was 11 m (36 feet). Construction of this dome began at the center and then panels were added to the perimeter, elevating the center as more were added until the dome was complete. As this was a student project constructed on the Oregon campus, it was a temporary structure and was disassembled shortly after its construction. Even so, many of the fabrication and construction techniques used in this project were used and improved upon in creation of the more permanent Woods Hole dome.

Figure 6: Fabrication of diamond modules at University of Oregon. [University of Oregon, 6]

The only recorded documentation of the Woods Hole dome’s construction details come from a few lines in a lecture given by Buckminster Fuller [7] in 1975, brief mentions in articles by Progressive Architecture [3] and Fuller himself [8]. Fuller describes how a group of students from across the country came together to construct the dome after the geometry was designed and parts were fabricated at MIT. Fortunately, Tunney Lee, a recent graduate from University at Michigan (and now Professor Emeritus at MIT) joined the construction team in 1953 with camera in hand and shared his experiences in a series of recent interviews with the first author. His documentation affirmed Fuller’s account and provided other details about the construction process that had remained a mystery. In the spring of 1953, a group of students cut over 700 wood members and welded over 170 steel angles in a wood shop at MIT before transporting them in a truck down to the Woods Hole site (figure 7). The parts were then assembled into panels. To do this, two jigs (for the narrow and wide panels) were set up to hold the members that formed the perimeter of the panel in place while they were bolted together using specially-fabricated steel angles as documented in figure 8 and in figure 9. To hold the shape of the rhombic hypar panels before the full dome structure was complete, temporary tension cables were strung between the interior corners of the panels (figure 8). The eyebolts that tied down these cables are still present in the structure today. The smaller interior members were then bolted to the primary diamond structure. The wide panels contained 13 interior members and the narrow panels contained 9 interior members. The dimensions measured by the authors of all in situ members can also be found in figure 9.

Figure 7: Precut boards loaded in truck at MIT. [T. Lee, 8]

Figure 8: Assembling panels on site in Woods Hole. [T. Lee, 9]

4 Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

Figure 9: Axonometric detail drawing of a joint between three wide panels. Once the panel assembly was completed, the installation began. Unlike the Oregon dome, the panels of this dome were much larger and much heavier. Because of this, the panels were installed from the bottom ring of the dome and built upward. Once the bottom panels were bolted to the wooden ring baseplate, panels were hoisted up into place by hand, clamped in place and then bolted to adjacent panels. Tunney Lee recalled that due to the imprecision of construction, “The pieces were pre-cut and pre-drilled. And then we had to re-drill them all.” When the structure became too tall for panels to be lifted by hand, the team developed a rigging system by tying a long board with a pulley on the end to the bolted structure, effectively creating a makeshift crane to lift the panels into place (figures 11, 12, and 13). This solution allowed the entire dome to be created without interior scaffolding or a machine lift. The only bracing used for the cantilevering structure before the dome was complete was the steel cables that kept the panels in their hyperbolic shape. Fuller personally climbed on the incomplete dome during the construction process (fig. 11) though he was 60 years old at the time.

Figure 10: Wide panel with steel cable tie. [T. Lee, 10] Figure 11: Buckminster Fuller demonstrating how the improvised crane could work. [T. Lee, 11]

Figure 12: Cantilevering panels during installation. [S. Rosenberg, 13]

5 Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

Figure 13: Wide panel being hoisted into place. [T. Lee, 12]

Figure 14: Wood structure complete. [T. Lee, 13] Construction on site lasted about two months according to Lee, during July and August (though Fuller [8] claimed it took three weeks on site). During their time in Woods Hole, the team swam in the ocean after late lunches and spent the evenings conversing. The dome’s structure was completed in late August and a year later faced a severe loading test: a hurricane in 1954. The Mylar cladding did not survive, but the structure held up well.

5. Load Path To understand how the dome structure has survived hurricane wind loads and still stands today, the structural behavior of the dome must first be described (figure 15). Within each panel, the thinner interior members act in bending and tension and transfer the loads to the primary structural members on the perimeter (figure 16). The perimeter members are thicker and create a ring around each panel. To form the dome, the panels are bolted together and adjacent panels form the doubly thick primary structure. These doubled members transfer the loads throughout the dome and into the foundation. As described, the linear geodesic structure effectively performs as a continuous shell structure with localized bending moments carried by the timber beam elements.

Figure 15: Plan showing load paths; Orange: load paths in panel; Red: primary load paths

Figure 16: Axonometric drawing showing load paths of single panel Orange: load paths within panel; Red: primary load paths

7. Structural Analysis With the information and documentation developed through the research into the geometry and construction of the Woods Hole Dome, a structural analysis can be conducted. The first most direct test is to compare the long-term deformations seen in the existing structure with the ideal geometry of the geodesic dome. The three-dimensional model of the ideal geodesic geometry was created by TaffGoch [15] and then refined by the authors.

6 Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

A Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was carried out using Karamba, a parametric structural engineering plug-in for Grasshopper in Rhinoceros to predict the elastic deflection of the dome. In this model, only the primary structural members were modeled. All joints were modeled as fixed connections due to the strong tie of the bolted connections. All members supported by the ground plane were modeled as fixed supports. The structure was analyzed under self-weight and uniform snow load. The gravity loads are 8.6 kN (1944 lbs.) for the primary structural Douglas Fir wood members, 20.1 kN (4518.7 lbs.) for the .3 cm (.125 in) fiberglass roof panels with approximately 10 layers of liquid-applied waterproof coatings. A uniform snow load of 1.4 kN/m2 (30 PSF) was applied to the entire roof. The model showed that the top of the dome would lower, while the sides of the dome would bulge outwards as expected for a spherical geometry under uniform load. The average deflection measured from the Karamba analysis is 10.8 cm (4.25 inches). The authors visited the dome and took measurements of the interior nodes at which the structural panels came together. Measurements were taken from three fixed points on the floor of the dome to each visible node in the geodesic structure. A drop ceiling obstructed the view to get measurements for several nodes. Each measurement was used as a radius to create a sphere and then the intersection of the three spheres triangulated the location of each node. A Grasshopper script was used to quickly produce a digital 3D model that mapped the interior points of the structure.

Figure 17: Axonometric drawing of the interior nodes of dome; Green: Ideal, Black: Measured [drawn by author] Figure 18: Elevation drawing of FEA; analysis is exaggerated by a factor of two to better show structural behavior; Green: Ideal, Black: Measured, Red: Analysis (increased by factor of 2)

The FEA accurately predicted the deformation behavior of the dome. When the measured nodes of the existing structure were compared to the ideal structure, an average maximum vertical deformation of 14.0 cm (5.5 inches) was found (Figure 17 and 18). This can be considered as the total deformation due to the summation of initial elastic deflection, long-term creep, and movements in the joints. The top of the dome has lowered slightly and the sides of the dome have pushed out. Since the difference between the average elastic deflection found the Karamba analysis and the field-measurements is only 3.2 cm (1.25 inch), the dome has moved a relatively a small amount beyond the predicted deflection. This demonstrates that the dome has not sagged a great deal over time and is in a safe condition. A final calculation was completed to test the critical buckling load at which the 10 base members would fail. Taking into account the total weight of the wooden structure, the weight of the fiberglass roof panels with approximately 10 layers of liquid-applied waterproof coatings and the snow load, the buckling strength of the members greatly exceeds the loads that they receive.

9. Conclusion The Woods Hole dome is unique in R. Buckminster Fuller’s built legacy. As an early experimental geodesic dome in timber, it served as a crucial testing ground in the development of Fuller’s patents and later built work. Original construction photos and process are revealed here for the first time. This resilient structure has withstood decades of weather, wear, and neglect. A new survey has revealed its detailed geometry for the first time and has estimated its deformation compared to the idealized form. Its geodesic form has deflected slightly from the ideal geometry, suggesting that the structure remains sound. This paper is a first step to a more in-depth analysis of the dome’s structure that ultimately can contribute to the restoration and preservation of the dome. The Woods Hole dome is a unique structure embedded with great cultural significance and should be saved for future generations.

7 Proceedings of the IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Professor Tunney Lee for sharing his firsthand experience in building this dome. We are also grateful for conversations with Chris Dewart that contributed to this research.

References

[1] E. Popko, “Woods Hole Dome” In Geodesics. Detroit, MI: University of Detroit Press, 1968.

[2] J. W. Mavor, Jr. (2004). Woods Hole Dome in 2004 [Image] in “The Woods Hole Geodesic Dome - A Synergetic Landmark,” 2004. Accessed on: Jan 24, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://www.woodsholemuseum.org/oldpages/sprtsl/v18n2-Geodes.pdf

[3] "Geodesic Wood Dome; Restaurant, Woods Hole, Mass." Progressive Architecture, vol. 35, June 1954, pp. 100-101.

[4] R. B. Fuller, “Laminar Geodesic Dome,” U.S. Patent 3 203 144 A, Aug. 31, 1965.

[5] “1960s: Visionary Fuller brought dome projects to UO,” (2015, Jan. 15). University of Oregon College of Design School of Art + Design News, Eugene, OR. Accessed on: Jan. 24, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://artdesign.uoregon.edu/1960s-visionary-fuller-brought-dome-projects-uo

[6] Geodesic Dome, University of Oregon, Image. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, 1953. Oregon Digital. Accessed on: Jan. 23, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://oregondigital.org/sets/building- or/oregondigital:df67j0379

[7] R. B. Fuller, Speaker, Everything I Know, January 1975. Accessed on: Jan. 24, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.bfi.org/about-fuller/resources/everything-i-know/session-11#part6

[8] R. B. Fuller, “Architecture Out of the Laboratory,” Dimension, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 20, Spring 1955. Accessed on: Jan 23, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.com/books?id=yatUAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR9&dq=hurricane+woods+hole+dome &hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjku9bZv4DZAhURn1MKHa2EDloQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=hurri cane%20woods%20hole%20dome&f=false

[9] T. Lee (1953). Nautilus Motor Inn Dome Restaurant [Image]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Libraries Dome Archive. Accessed on: Nov. 28, 2016. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.3/29960

[10] T. Lee (1953). Nautilus Motor Inn Dome Restaurant [Image]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Libraries Dome Archive. Accessed on: Nov. 28, 2016. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.3/29939

[11] T. Lee (1953). Nautilus Motor Inn Dome Restaurant [Image]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Libraries Dome Archive. Accessed on: Nov. 28, 2016. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.3/29941

[12] T. Lee (1953). Nautilus Motor Inn Dome Restaurant [Image]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Libraries Dome Archive. Accessed on: Nov. 28, 2016. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.3/29953

[13] T. Lee (1953). Nautilus Motor Inn Dome Restaurant [Image]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Libraries Dome Archive. Accessed on: Nov. 28, 2016. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.3/29966

[14] T. Lee (1953). Nautilus Motor Inn Dome Restaurant [Image]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Libraries Dome Archive. Accessed on: Nov. 28, 2016. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.3/29933

[15] TaffGoch (2014, Oct. 14). “Woods Hole Dome,” 3D Warehouse. Accessed on: Jan 24, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model.html?id=u27e8b8c2-2243-465a-b7d3- 810a50e6ccbe

8 Existing and Proposed Plans and Elevations LOT 45 N/F EXISTING HOUSE DAVID & ALEXANDER KLEIN, TRS. LOT 42 N/F N LOT 44 N/F LOT 43 STEPHEN MARTIN & CB N/F CYNTHIA R. KRANE

DANIEL JOHNSON, TR. LOT 41 508.477.9072 FAX

FZ DAVID A. EPSTEIN S 62° 32' 38" E N/F 508.477.7272 PHONE EXISTING NIELS & DOROTHY T. B 269.15' HOUSE HAUGAARD LOT 40 N/F

KOIDE FAMILY, LLC NAD 83 CB EXISTING

HOUSE FZ CB/DH

100' BUFFER 100' FOUND

85'

FOOTPATH

xx EXISTING xx HOUSE

COASTAL BANK

100' BUFFER FROM xx S 62° 32' 38" E

STONE WALL CHAIN LINK FENCExx

FZ xx

xx 234.09' xx www.CapeEng.com [email protected] SUMMERFIELD PARK 800 FALMOUTH ROAD SUITE 301C CB MASHPEE, MA 02649

STONE WALL REMAINS

B xx TP-10 4.0' PROPOSED 4' WIDE

100' BUFFER TP-8 xx BITUMINOUS SIDEWALK 1-W CB/DH 30.0' LIMIT OF WORK FZ S 62° 32' 38" E 12.0' FOUND xx 4-W PROPOSED GRAVEL SB/DH LOT 63 5.0' 39.86' 8.0' x 3.6' N/F

x PAD FOR BIKE RACK FOUNDS 57° 21' 38" E

x xx

WETLAND 265.57' x x x

B 41.8'

100' BUFFER FROM 42.21' EXISTING GORDON D. BERNE 8.0' N 1° 50' 38" W 38" 50' 1° N xx

5.0' 41.8' CB/DH DUPLEX 18.0' TENNIS COURT HOUSE PROPOSED BUILDING 'G' 19.0' FOUND

F. F. EL. = 43.7 xx 12.0' 100' BUFFER 3.6'

x 30.0'

WALL 38' 4.0' S 57° 21' 38" E x xx

STONE RETAINING x 74 x

x 111.17' x

B SB/DH 4.0' xx 24.0' FOUND EXISTING CAPE COD BERM HOUSE 30.0' CHAIN LINK FENCE 12.0' xx THIS PLAN MAY NOT BE ADDED TO, DELETED THE PROPERTY OF CAPE AND ISLANDS OTHER THAN CAPE & ISLANDS ENGINEERING, INC. STAMP AND SIGNATURE APPEARS ON THIS PLAN OFFICIAL MAY RELY UPON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN; AND THIS PLAN REMAINS FROM, OR ALTERED IN ANY WAY BY ANYONE UNLESS AND UNTIL SUCH TIME AS AN ORIGINAL NO PERSON OR PERSONS, MUNICIPAL PUBLIC ENGINEERING, INC. SB/DH NOTICE 100' BUFFER COPYRIGHT (C) BY CAPE & ISLANDS ENGINEERING, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

9.0' 70' FOUND

5.0' xx 18.0' 8.0' S 48° 53' 18" E x 3.6' x x

x LAWN x x 2-W

41.8' B 42' xx 59.70' 8.0' PROPOSED 4' WIDE TP-7 13.3' 6.1' 5.0' 41.8' DUPLEX 18.0' BITUMINOUS SIDEWALK 6.1' 2.9' 10.1' PROPOSED xx

4.0' BUILDING 'F' xx F. F. EL. = 43.7 PROPOSED WOODEN GUARD RAIL 2.0' LOT 61 12.0' 24.8' 50.0' 13' 3.6' xx 4.0' 36.0' 13.8' CB/DH N/F xx 4.0' 30.0' TP-9 FOUND xx xx 56.3' 3-W 2.0' xx B 10.6' MICHAEL P. GOLDRING o o PROPOSED DIRECTIONAL o o 67 o o 8.1' o 13.9' 70' PAVEMENT MARKING (TYP.) o o 31 o o 33 30' o o o o 40.9' PROPOSED FENCED-IN EDGE OF PAVEMENT o o o o o 30 o o o o o o o LOT 12AX TP-11 o 36 PROPOSED BUILDING 'A' DUMPSTER CONCRETE PAD CB/DH o 8.1'

N/F 37 TP-BSS2 20 RESIDENTIAL UNITS x LOT 60 B FOUND 39 x N/F

50.0' 24.0' F. F. EL. = 66.0 22.3' WOODS HOLE o PROPOSED WOODEN GUARD RAIL 24.0' GARAGE SLAB = 57.0 x 20.0'

23 14.0' o CHARLES R. & ELLEN OCEANOGRAPHIC 85.00' 200.49' 23.0' x INST. TP-BSS1 3.0' CB/DH G. WYTTENBACH N 67° 34' 28" W 5.0' 23.0' 26.5' o 30.0' 40.0' 22 24.0' S 88° 09' 22" W 3.0' FOUND o CB/DH LANDSCAPED36.0' 16.0' 17.0' 6.1' 6.1' 14.9' 21 CB/DH FOUND 23.0' o BENCHMARK 6.1' 4.3'

CB/DH 3.0' o 6.0' 75' FOUND CONCRETE BOUND 34' 3.0' 15.9' 13.3' 4.0' 26.0' 18.0' 9.9' 6.0' 20 EXISTING WAY - 16' WIDE FOUND 36.0' o PROPOSED CAPE COD BERM 42 ELEVATION = 43.26' NAVD88 3.1' (PLAN BOOK 247 PAGE 101) o 40 MH S 6° 45' 20" E 9.0' 32.0' 9.9' 9.0' 9.6' o BENCHMARK FENCE 19 170.61' LANDSCAPED 10.0' LOT C POST AND RAIL FENCE TO BE ESTABLISHED 39.0' N/F DUMPSTER 20.0' FOR CONSTRUCTION 6.1' 42.5'6.1' FIRE LANE 12.0' DISTRICT ELEANORA S. 22.7' EDGE OF PAVEMENT 7.0' 6.1' 7.0' 46.4' CHAMBERS, TR. GARAGE 2.0' 12.0' MH 13.9' 24.0' LANDSCAPED LANDSCAPED 22.0' 43 16 5.0' 14.0' Drawn By: RLR/JVB 80.60' 6.1' TP-6 9.0' 54 36.0' HISTORIC LIMIT OF WORK Checked By: (TYP.) 5.8' MC

N 15° 55' 52" E 18.0' EDGE OF PAVEMENT PROPOSED 4' WIDE (TYP.) 50 51 5.8' BITUMINOUS SIDEWALK VAN 10.0'TP-5 PROPOSED CAPE COD BERM 20.0' By

20.0' JVB 8.0' RLR RLR RLR PROPOSED STOP SIGN PROPOSED CAPE COD BERM 8.0' EXISTING ABUTTING AND PAVEMENT LINE (TYP.) 8.0' 43' PARKING CAPE COD BERM

LANDSCAPE ISLAND MH PROPOSED 4' WIDE 22.0' MH TO BE RESHAPED MH BITUMINOUS SIDEWALK SO PROPOSED 6' WIDE W LOT 217 15.0' 6.1' MH N/F CROSSWALK (TYP.) 6.1' PROPOSED PAVEMENT SAWCUT EDGE OF PAVEMENT 13.7' MH 2.0' 20.0' 48.0' RETAINING MH AND PAVEMENT MATCH LINE 15.0' 6.0' WALLS LUSCOMBE 5.0' 2.0' 35.0' REFER TO DEMOLITION PLAN 42' 13.0' AVENUE LLC 41' 8.0' 6.0' 2.0' DESIGNED 22.0' 35.0' 22.0' 3.0' 8.0' 55 MH BY OTHERS 21.98' PROPOSED DUPLEX EXISTING

42' (TYP.) HOTEL 9.0' G DISTRICT BASEMENT = 55.0 6.0' 6.1' 13 GARAGE = 65.0F. F. EL. = 65.5 15.5' HISTORIC BUILDING 'B' 29.0' S 83° 14' 40" W PAVEMENT 23.0' 24.0' 13.7' LANDSCAPED PROPOSED GRAVEL

18.0' PAD FOR BIKE RACK 10.0' G LOT 1B (TYP.) 6.0' 70' 85.54' 15.0' 4.0' N/F EXISTING 10.0' 58 6.1' 20.0' x 5.5'

BUILDING x G EXISTING PROPOSED GRAVEL PARKING AREA N 25° 31' 22" E x CAPE COD BERM 9.0' DECK 24.0' 10 20.3' ROBERT N. & SUSAN 6.0' BUILDING 13.0' FOR PERPENDICULAR PARKING 23.5' VEEDER, TRS. 8.0' 26.9' 8.0' SPACES WITH WHEEL STOPS 24.0' 29.5' (TYP.) PROPOSED

9.0' PROPOSED BUILDINGG 'E'

13 RESIDENTIAL UNITS RETAINING 25.0' 5.0' 66 4.0' 31.9' 59 GARAGE SLAB = 56.0 WALL - DESIGN S 6° 45' 20" E 15.0' EXISTING 3.3' 13.9' 2ND F. F. = 75.0 BY OTHERS F. F. EL. = 65.0 8.0' 18.0' BUILDING

3.0' 4.0' 42.0' G 1.5' 6.0' 15.0' (TYP.) 14 115.98' ADD IMPROVEMENTS TO DRIVEWAY CURB CUTS AND WOODS ADD DIMENSIONS OF ALL BUILDING. 48.0' REVISE LOW, BUILDING 'E', GARAGE 'A' & PARKING COUNT, PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING DIMENSIONS, ADD BENCHMARK HOLE ROAD SIDEWALKS. WIDEN PARKING DRIVEWAY'. REVISE PROPOSED DOME ADDITION 5' TP-2 9.3' CB 18.0' 35.0' G 13.6' 9.0' 8.0' (TYP.) 8.7' 63.0'

37' G PROPOSED

63 62 100.0' 9/6/19 24.0' 740 S.F. ADDITION 5/24/19

33.0' G 45.54' x 5 EXISTING

10.7' 8.0' DOME G 12 1/31/19 3 3/14/19 N 45° 30' 52" E 1.5' 4 CAPE COD BERM 8.3' 6.0' PROPOSEDEXISTING DUPLEX 10.7' 24.0' 24.0' Rev Date Description 1.5' 33.5' 8.3'

1.5' HOTEL EXISTING G EXISTING BUILDING 'C' 1.5' HOTEL 25.0' 2ND F. F. = 63.0 EXISTING SIDEWALK BUILDING 19.0' 1ST F. F. = 53.0 19.0' G GARAGE SLAB = 52.5 33.0' 15 PROPOSED 4' WIDE 1.5' x 9.0' PROPOSED 19.5' 10.7' x 4.0' GRANITE CURBING

19.5' G RETAINING BITUMINOUS SIDEWALK 6.0' x 6.0' PROPOSED DUPLEX R = 30' 1.5' 19.5' 24.0' 19.5' 18.0' WALL - DESIGN 8.3' G MHB/ DRILLHOLE 6.0' 25' BY OTHERS GARAGE SLAB2ND = F. BUILDING54.5 F. = 65.0 'D' 1 2.0' 24' 8.0' 48.0' 1ST F. F. = 55.0 33.5' 6.1' N 14° 16'FOUND 39" W

13.5' 6.1' 14.0' 6.1' G 7.0' 19.5' 26.0' 6.1' 6.1' TP-1 7.0' 8.0' 13.7' 29.73' 14.0' EXISTING 6.1' 13.7' 31' 73.16' 19.5' 13.7' 89.16' HOTEL 7.0' 13.5' N 56° 42' 52" E 6.0' 26' 18.0' G S 75° 47' 03" W TP-3 1.5' 10.7' 7.0' 1.5' W TP-4 19.5' EXISTING WAY - 16' WIDE G 19.5' W

AGREEMENT DATED G H D 8.3' MHB/ DRILLHOLE Y NOVEMBER 11, 1957 19.0' G 18.0' W FOUND GAS (BOOK 993 PAGE 574) VALVE 6.0' 311.83' 18.0' W G

GV CBASIN G 55' W R=56.29 LANDSCAPED STONE WALL S 88° 28' 46" W CATCH G AREA BASIN BENCHMARK 26' W IN SURVEY MAG NAIL #5003 21.23' G PROPOSED STOP SIGN

G APPROXIMATEW LOCATION AND PAVEMENT LINE ELEVATION = 37.98' NAVD88 R=418.05 EXISTING BITUMINOUS SIDEWALK ' 57' G N 18° 36' 52" E TO BE RECONSTRUCTED AND W L=184 4" PL 60 PSIG 1982 EXISTING HYDRANT TO SITE PLAN PP .31' WIDENED TO 5' (415± L.F.)

CBASIN 71 GV W G

H D LP 8" CICL WATERMAIN Y G BE RELOCATED. REFER R = 30' (EXISTING) R=38.16 159 G CB W W G TO UTILITIES PLAN. MHB/ DRILLHOLE W W W W W W G

71 SITE LAYOUT PLAN PP W 10" CI WATERMAIN (1952) W LP W G FOUND W W 158 W G

APPROXIMATE LOCATION FALMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS

10" CI WATERMAINW (1899) EXISTING SIDEWALK PROPOSED CONCRETE LP G G APPROXIMATE LOCATION W W W 533-539 WOODS HOLE ROAD G EXISTING SIDEWALK W 71 G SIDEWALK ACCESSIBLE W PP W G G W 157 WOODS HOLE PARTNERS, LLC EXISTING SIDEWALK G W GV W RAMP AND LANDING G W GV W GRANITE CURBING G W W G 4" PL 60 PSIG 1982 G W W W 4" PL 60 PSIG 1981 R = 15' G CBASIN 10" CICL WATERMAIN (1952) G PROPOSED CONCRETE G G R=45.69G G G SIDEWALK ACCESSIBLE G G G EXISTING PAVED SHOULDER G G G G BENCHMARK RAMP AND LANDING PULL-OFF TO REMAIN PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK ACCESSIBLE MA. HIGHWAY CONCRETE BOUND PROPOSED STOP SIGN EXISTING CURB GV RAMP AND LANDING AND PAVEMENT LINE CUT TO REMAIN WOODS HOLE ROAD (STATE HIGHWAY - VARIABLE WIDTH) ELEVATION = 68.16' NAVD88 CB

0 30 60 100 PREPARED FOR: DRAWING TITLE: CHURCH Date: OCTOBER 5, 2018 STREET SCALE: 1" = 30' C-101 C-101 SITE LAYOUT PLAN CONSULTANT

HIGH DOME 27' - 4"

02 SECOND FLOOR CLG. 17' - 3 1/2"

02 SECOND FLOOR 8' - 9 1/2" FIRST FLOOR CLG 7' - 7" 01 FIRST FLOOR PROPOSED 0' - 0"

GROUND -5' - 6" NORTH VIEW - ELEVATION 2 1/8" = 1'-0"

REVISION

# DAT

NOTE HIGH DOME THIS DOCUMENT'S USE BY THE OWNER FOR 27' - 4" OTHER PROJECTS OR FOR COMPLETION OF THIS PROJECT BY OTHERS IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN. DISTRIBUTION IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS PUBLICATION IN DEROGATION OF THE DESIGNER'S RIGHTS. 02 SECOND FLOOR CLG. 17' - 3 1/2"

PROJECT 02 SECOND FLOOR BUCKMINTER 8' - 9 1/2" FULLER DOME AT FIRST FLOOR CLG WOODS HOLE 7' - 7" 01 FIRST FLOOR DRAWING PROPOSED 0' - 0" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - EXISTING PROJECT NUMBER

SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" 08/05/2019

WEST VIEW - ELEVATION 1 DRAWN ELF 1/8" = 1'-0" A2.0

SEAL DRAWING CONSULTANT

02 SECOND FLOOR CLG. 17' - 3 1/2"

02 SECOND FLOOR 8' - 9 1/2" FIRST FLOOR CLG 7' - 7" 01 FIRST FLOOR PROPOSED 0' - 0" SOUTH VIEW -ELEVATION 2 1/8" = 1'-0" GROUND -5' - 6"

REVISION

# DAT

NOTE HIGH DOME 27' - 4" THIS DOCUMENT'S USE BY THE OWNER FOR OTHER PROJECTS OR FOR COMPLETION OF THIS PROJECT BY OTHERS IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN. DISTRIBUTION IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS PUBLICATION IN DEROGATION OF 02 SECOND THE DESIGNER'S RIGHTS. FLOOR CLG. 17' - 3 1/2"

02 SECOND PROJECT FLOOR 8' - 9 1/2" BUCKMINTER

FIRST FLOOR CLG FULLER DOME AT 7' - 7" WOODS HOLE

01 FIRST FLOOR DRAWING CONCRETE PAD PROPOSED 5'6" X 9'7" 0' - 0" EXTERIOR GROUND -5' - 6" ELEVATIONS -EXISTING EAST VIEW - ELEVATION 1 PROJECT NUMBER 1/8" = 1'-0" SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" 08/05/2019

DRAWN ELF

A2.1

SEAL DRAWING Community Center @ B.F. Geodesic Dome 535 Woods Hole Road concept plan R E V I S O N 02-14-17 3 2 4 1 5 date: 09-05-2019 scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"

A201 Community Center @ B.F. Geodesic Dome 535 Woods Hole Road concept plan R E V I S O N 02-14-17 3 2 4 1 5 date: 09-05-2019 scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"

A202 535 Woods Hole Road Unit B - Proposed Roof Plan revised elevations concept plan R E V I S I O N S 02-14-17 12-04-18 3 5 1 2 4

date: 07-24-2019 scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Unit B

B-A103 and Left Elevations 535 Woods Hole Road Unit B - Proposed Front revised elevations concept plan R E V I S I O N S 02-14-17 12-04-18 3 5 1 2 4

date: 07-24-2019 scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Unit B

B-A201 and Right Elevations Unit B - Proposed Rear 535 Woods Hole Road revised elevations concept plan R E V I S I O N S 02-14-17 12-04-18 3 5 1 2 4

date: 07-24-2019 scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Unit B

B-A202 535 Woods Hole Road Units C&D - Proposed Roof Plan revised elevations concept plan R E V I S I O N S 02-14-17 12-04-18 3 5 1 2 4

date: 07-24-2019 scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Units C&D

D-A103 535 Woods Hole Road Units C&D - Proposed Elevations revised elevations concept plan R E V I S I O N S 02-14-17 12-04-18 3 5 1 2 4

date: 07-24-2019 scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Units C&D

D-A201 535 Woods Hole Road Units C&D - Proposed Elevations revised elevations concept plan R E V I S I O N S 02-14-17 12-04-18 3 5 1 2 4

date: 07-24-2019 scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Units C&D

D-A202 535 Woods Hole Road Unit E - Proposed Elevations revised elevations concept plan R E V I S I O N S 02-14-17 12-04-18 3 5 1 2 4 date: 07-24-2019

scale: 3/16" = 1'-0" Unit E

E-A201 535 Woods Hole Road Unit E - Proposed Elevations revised elevations concept plan R E V I S I O N S 02-14-17 12-04-18 3 5 1 2 4 date: 07-24-2019

scale: 3/16" = 1'-0" Unit E

E-A202