National Park Service MISSION 66 VISITOR CENTERS The History of a Building Type

Registering Mission 66 Visitor Centers in the National Register of Historic Places

Associated Historic Context

Sarah Allaback, Ph.D., Mission 66 Visitor Centers: The History of a Building Type (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2000).

Period of Significance

The "Mission 66" program was initiated by the National Park Service in 1956 and was to be completed by the 50th anniversary of the agency in 1966. Earlier planning and development projects, however, set important precedents for the program and determined much of the character of its planning and architectural development. The "public use buildings" at Carlsbad Caverns (beginning in 1953) and at Grand Canyon (beginning in 1954), for example, were important steps in developing the visitor center building type. The Mission 66 era, in the broadest sense, began in 1945, when the postwar phase of park planning and design began at the Park Service.

Conrad L. Wirth, who initiated the program as Park Service director, stepped down in 1964. His successor, George B. Hartzog, Jr., continued Mission 66 and initiated a successor program, "Parkscape," intended to be finished in time for the Yellowstone centennial in 1972. The Mission 66 era therefore did not end in 1966, since this year did not mark a significant termination or change in park planning and design policy. The Parkscape program continued many of the basic assumptions, policies, and architectural style of Mission 66. Change did arrive, but a few years later, as the Park Service planning and design functions were centralized in Denver (1971), environmental laws were enacted and implemented (especially the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969), the Parkscape program ended (1972), and the political context of Park Service leadership changed with the appointment of a politician with no park management experience, Ronald H. Walker, as Park Service director (January 1973). The general period of significance for this historical context therefore includes the years from 1945 to 1972.

The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) requires that properties less than 50 years old possess "exceptional importance" if they are to be determined eligible for the register (Criteria Consideration G). The historical context developed for Mission 66 visitor centers indicates that only those visitor centers that served as early prototypes (1945-1956) or which were part of the original, finite group of Mission 66 visitor centers (1956-1966) potentially possess exceptional importance. The period of significance for any Mission 66 visitor center of exceptional importance should therefore fall within the years 1945-1966. Not all visitor centers dating to this period, however, will possess exceptional importance (see requirements for exceptional importance below).

Associated Property Type: The Visitor Center

During the Mission 66 era, the Park Service built housing, maintenance areas, roads, entrance stations, parking lots, campgrounds, comfort stations, picnic shelters, concessioner buildings, and other park facilities intended to serve park visitors and facilitate park management. This contextual study is associated with one property type of the Mission 66 era: the park visitor center. Other Mission 66 property types besides the visitor center may be identified in the future, but will be associated with an expanded historical context and registration requirements.

Mission 66 planners coined the term "visitor center" to describe a new building type they developed to serve the vastly increased numbers of people (and their cars) who began visiting the national parks following World War II. The visitor center combined old and new building programs, and it was the centerpiece of a new era in planning for visitor services in American national parks. The influence of the visitor center idea was profound. New visitor centers (and the planning ideas behind them) 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 original, finite group of Mission 66 visitor centers therefore became prototypes for a new approach to park planning all over the world.

The visitor center typically is a centralized facility that includes multiple visitor and administrative functions within a single architectural floor plan or compound. The use of the word "center" indicated the planners desire to centralize park interpretive and museum displays, new types of interpretive presentations, park administrative offices, restrooms, and various other visitor facilities. Like the contemporary "shopping 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. The visitor center facilitated and concentrated public activities, and so helped prevent more random, destructive patterns of use.

The more significant examples of visitor center design contributed to the evolution of the museum, as a building type, as had earlier national park museums of the 1920s and 1930s. Some visitor center activities and programs, such as administrative offices and museum displays, had been featured in "park village" developments since the early 1920s, although usually in separate buildings. Other program elements, such as interpretive displays, slide shows, and films, were being developed at the time by Park Service interpretive planners and museum staff. The term "interpretation" replaced "education" at the Park Service in the late 1940s, and the new approach was extremely influential on the development of the floor plans, spatial processions, and functional spaces of Mission 66 visitor centers. Theater spaces for new slide shows and 16 mm films soon became standard requirements, as did space for interpretive displays which either replaced or complemented the more familiar exhibit cases of older park museums. The "information" desk (as opposed to interpretive or museum displays) became an essential and central feature of the new facility, and emphasized rapid and efficient dissemination of practical information related to park attractions, visitor safety, and convenience.

The procession (or sequence of spaces) through a visitor center was a particularly important aspect of its design. Increased numbers of visitors required this attention to circulation and visitor "flow," and contemporary modern architectural design also stressed procession as an aspect of planning new buildings. In Mission 66 visitor centers, the spatial procession through the facility often included wide entrances and exits, ramps and inclined planes, an open lobby, easy access to exhibit and auditorium areas, and significant views of natural features or historic sites (either from a terrace or through a window wall) to facilitate interpretive talks.

The siting of visitor centers was determined by new considerations in park master planning that involved the circulation of unprecedented numbers of peoples and cars. The visitor center was an integral part of a new approach to park planning. The new buildings were typically sited in relation to the overall circulation plan of the park, in order to efficiently intercept visitor flow at critical points. The criteria for siting Mission 66 visitor centers therefore differed from the criteria for siting and designing the park villages and museums of the prewar era. In larger parks, new visitor centers were often sited at park entrances, or on park roads "en route" to major destinations in the park. In other cases, visitor centers were sited at a major destination or attraction within the park. In some cultural parks, visitor centers were often sited as close as possible to the landscape or other resource to be interpreted. This implied a certain amount of encroachment on the park landscape, but it was felt that this provided the most powerful means of interpreting a site that otherwise might remain obscure or less than fully appreciated by park visitors.

Although visitor centers typically were sited in relationship to the park's automotive circulation plan, designers explored the potential for visitors to use nearby trails and outdoor spaces once they were out of their cars. Outdoor amphitheaters, roof terraces, and other exterior features all served as functional parts of the visitor center complex. Rest rooms often were designed as separate buildings adjacent to the visitor center, or at least with separate outdoor entrances. Nearby parking lots and site development were integral to the overall procession into and through the building. Ramps often replaced stairs into and out of the building, and window walls helped break down the division between site and interior space. Short interpretive trails ("nature trails") were often developed to provide an outdoor experience near the visitor center, and outdoor picnic and sitting areas were common as well.

The Mission 66 visitor center remains today as the most architecturally significant expression of the planning and design practices developed by the Park Service during the Mission 66 era.

Associated Architectural Style: "Park Service Modern"

The Mission 66 era visitor center also embodied a distinctive new architectural style that can be described as "Park Service Modern."

Park Service Modern architecture responded to the new context of post-World War II social, demographic, and economic conditions. American architects had assimilated the influence of European modern architecture by the 1950s, and Park Service architects in turn were influenced by this national trend. Park Service Modern style was an integral part of a broader effort at the Park Service to transform the agency, and the national park system, to meet the exigencies of postwar America. It was during the postwar period that the Park Service adopted the "arrowhead" logo and redesigned agency uniforms. As part of Mission 66, new professional training programs were established and agency personnel was expanded. Major land acquisition led to the development of new kinds of parks, including national recreation areas (such as Glen Canyon, 1958) and national seashores (such as Cape Cod, 1961). Other parks that had been acquired earlier but remained undeveloped, such as Everglades and Big Bend national parks, became showcases of Mission 66 planning and design. In some cases, such as Carlsbad Caverns National Park or Chiricahua National Monument, visitor center "additions" encased or extended older, rustic buildings, effectively transforming them into visitor centers.

In some ways Mission 66 continued traditions of Park Service planning and design; in other ways postwar social conditions, new practices in the construction industry, and the budget policies of the Truman and Eisenhower administrations necessitated new approaches to national park planning and management. Mission 66 planners responded to the tremendously increased demand for outdoor recreation, for example, as well as the increased development of gateway communities outside parks. Above all, the emerging Interstate Highway system forever changed the situation for many national parks, making them less isolated and more visited than ever. In some cases, such as Petrified Forest National Park, the locations of Interstate routes influenced the siting of park visitor centers.

Park Service Modern architectural style responded to all of these influences, and served an essential role in the Mission 66 program by utilizing efficient methods of construction (including inexpensive building materials) while providing a new, contemporary image for the visitor centers and other buildings. Park Service Modern buildings exploited the functional advantages offered by postwar architectural theory and construction techniques. The larger, more complex programming of the visitor center encouraged architects, especially Cecil Doty (at the NPS Western Office of Design and Construction) to take advantage of free plans (in which different functional spaces overlapped or were only partially divided), flat roofs (as well as other roof types), and other established elements of modern design in order to create spaces in which larger numbers of visitors could circulate easily and locate essential services efficiently. Such planning dictated the use of concrete construction and prefabricated components, and also often featured windows of unusual size, shape, and location. Unusual fenestration, in particular, was a hallmark of contemporary architecture and was often used with great effect in Mission 66 visitor centers to provide generous views of scenic or historic areas. Some buildings, such Cape Cod (Salt Pond) and Colorado National Monument visitor centers, were clearly sited in part to provide important views from within the building or from adjacent outdoor spaces.

These aspects of contemporary modern architecture in the 1950s proved particularly suited to the new programmatic and technical requirements faced by park architects of the era. At the same time, Park Service Modern design built on some precedents of Park Service Rustic design, especially in the use of interior courtyards, plain facades, and exterior masonry veneers. The result was a distinctive new style of park architecture that amounted to a Park Service adaptation of contemporary American modern architecture.

The architectural elevations of Park Service Modern visitor centers were stripped of most overtly decorative or associative elements, and the architects typically employed textured concrete with panels of stone veneer, painted steel columns, and flat roofs with projecting overhangs, terraces, or covered walks. Textured concrete block, or slump block, was a favorite (and relatively inexpensive) material. These formal elements often allowed the sometimes large and complex visitor centers to maintain a low, horizontal profile that remained as unobtrusive as possible. Stone and textured concrete could also take on earth tones that reduced visual contrast with landscape settings. In some cases, such as Big Bend (Panther Junction), Zion (Oak Creek), and Rocky Mountain (Beaver Meadows) visitor centers, buildings were sited on a slope, so that the public arrived on one side of the building and were presented with a single-story elevation, while the rear (service/administrative) side of the structure dropped down to house two levels of offices.

The Park Service Modern style developed by the Park Service during the Mission 66 era soon had a widespread influence on state park design nationwide and national park design internationally. The new architecture reinterpreted the long-standing commitment to "harmonize" architecture with park landscapes, and at its best, it did harmonize with its setting in a new way. Park Service Modern building could be both more understated and more efficient than Park Service Rustic buildings had been, since the new approach, when successful, provided more program and function for less architectural presence in the park. This was an important innovation, considering that new, relatively massive buildings were considered necessary to meet the demand for public services in the parks during the Mission 66 era.

The new visitor centers also exhibited a consistency in appearance and quality that was the result of the strongly centralized Mission 66 planning program. While the visitor centers were not standardized, they were the result of standard procedures and policies for design and construction. This consistency helped reinforce the strong sense of a national park "system," of which each park was a part. The Mission 66 visitor center became a recognizable point of reference for visitors, who knew what kind of services they could expect at such a facility, in order to begin their visit as pleasantly and efficiently as possible.

Although the new style had its critics from the very beginning, Park Service Modern, as developed by Park Service designers during the Mission 66 era, became as influential and significant in the history of American national and state park management as the Park Service Rustic style had been. The Mission 66 visitor center remains today as the most complete and significant expression of the Park Service Modern style.

Registration Requirements for Mission 66 Visitor Centers

The following requirements for registering Mission 66 visitor centers in the NRHP are given in three levels of increasing exclusivity. The first level (I) describes the requirements for registration for a historically significant visitor center. The second level (II) describes the requirements for determining "exceptional importance" for a building less than 50 years old. The third level (III) describes requirements for determining national significance.

In all cases, National Register Criteria A and C may apply. Criterion A would apply because the property is associated with events (the Mission 66 program as part of the development of the national park system) that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Criterion C would apply because the property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represents the work of a master; or possesses high artistic values. Eligibility under Criterion A relates to significance in one or several of the following areas: Community Planning and Development (park), Conservation, Ethnic Heritage, Entertainment/Recreation, Politics/Government, and Social History. Eligibility under Criterion C relates to significance in one or several of the following areas: Architecture, Landscape Architecture, and Community Planning and Development (park).

I. Requirements for Registration

To be considered eligible for listing in the NRHP, 50-year old Mission 66 visitor centers should possess the following characteristics:

1. The visitor center should be one of the important precedents of the Mission 66 program (1945-1956), be one of the visitor centers originally planned and built as part of the Mission 66 program (1956-1966), or as part of the Parkscape program (1966-1972). The property's period of significance should fall within the years 1945-1972.

2. The visitor center should retain most or all of the physical characteristics described in the description of the property type (above). The visitor center should be a centralized facility that includes multiple visitor and administrative functions within a single architectural floor plan or compound. Programming elements should include interpretive displays, space for slide shows and films, visitor contact, restrooms, and other services. The visitor center should be intended to serve the public by interpreting scenery, natural resources, and cultural sites, and should be a major point of visitor arrival, orientation, and service.

3. The visitor center should possess physical integrity to the period of significance. The NRHP requires that the integrity of a property be evident through historic qualities including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Examples of alterations or remodeling that may impair the historical integrity of a visitor center include (but are not limited to):

   • The addition of a new façade, new entrance wing, or other major exterior alteration that transforms the outward appearance of the building.

   • Complete alteration of entrance and sequence through building, due to the addition of new building wings, entrances, or other major alterations.

   • New roof structure that completely alters exterior appearance of building (such as pitched, raised-seam metal roof replacing original flat roof).

   • Extensive interior remodeling that alters definition of interior spaces, function of spaces, and sequence through spaces.

4. The visitor center should embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction that represent high artistic values. Specifically, the visitor center should be a successful reflection of the principles of "Park Service Modern" style. These include:

   • Building is sited in relation to an overall plan of "visitor flow" in the park, either near the park entrance, en route to a major park destination, or at a park destination.

   • Building design emphasizes plan organization (the design of the floor plans). Floor plan organization allowed segregation of public areas from administrative areas, and also emphasized efficient "visitor flow" through the building itself. A central lobby space is often the arrival point, with trails or other park destinations often accessed as the visitor moves through the building.

   • Building's program centralizes numerous park services, including information, interpretation, rest rooms, and administrative offices.

   • Building makes use of the formal vocabulary and materials of contemporary (1945-1972) modern architecture, including flat roofs (as well as other types of roofs), window walls (and other unorthodox fenestration), exposed steel supports, concrete and concrete block construction.

   • Overlapping functional spaces (free plans) sometimes evident in floor plan. Public areas usually on one level, or on split levels, segregated from administrative areas.

   • Integration of interior and exterior public spaces, often separated by windows, window walls, glass doors, or wooden doors with windows.

   • Entrances, exits, and other doorways often are wide, providing easy movement for crowds. Entrances often sheltered by porches, ramadas, arcades, etc. Rest rooms often nearby, with separate outdoor entrance.

   • Building emphasizes visitor's experience of spatial procession. This sequence of spaces often features ramps, as well as significant views of park landscapes either from terraces or through large windows.

   • Siting of visitor center near landscape or attraction to be interpreted sometimes allows interpretive programs to be extended into the visitor center itself.

   • Building's elevations create a mostly low-profile, horizontal effect.

   • Building "harmonizes" with its setting through horizontality of massing, color and texture of materials. Use of textured concrete, concrete block, and stone veneers in facades often give building generally rough exterior texture, often featuring earth toned colors.

   • Building footprint is often ell-shaped, rectangular around a central courtyard, or a variation on these themes.

   • Use of naturalistic planting to partially screen building, utility areas, and parking, as well as to repair areas disturbed in construction. Planter boxes often used to define entrances.

   • Outdoor spaces and site work, including parking lots, paths, amphitheaters, terraces, and patios often incorporated into visitor center complex.

II. Requirements for Exceptional Importance

For any property achieving significance within the last 50 years, National Register "Criteria Consideration G" requires that the property must be of "exceptional importance" to be considered eligible for registration. To meet this requirement and be eligible for registration, a Mission 66 visitor center less than 50 years old should possess all the characteristics described above, and in addition, the following requirements should be met:

1. The visitor center should be one of the important precedents of the Mission 66 program (1945-1956), or one originally planned and built as part of the Mission 66 program (1956-1966). The property's period of significance should fall within the years 1945-1966.

2. The visitor center should possess substantial physical integrity to the period of significance, 1945-1966. This should be considered a higher standard for integrity than that described for National Register listing of significant resources that have achieved 50 years of age. Sufficient features should be intact to relate the property to the Modern movement in terms of massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows, texture of materials, and ornamentation. Characteristics critical in defining the building's artistic merit or exemplary modern design should not be altered. Essential features that should be present for a property to represent its significance include the historic main facade and entry, important public spaces inside the visitor center, and other important interior spaces that define the particular buildings's historic character and use as a visitor center. An addition will not disqualify a resource, if it is compatible with the original building and not opposed to the intention of the original design, and if it does not obscure the qualities for which the building is significant.

3. The visitor center should possess exceptional importance in one or more of the following ways:

   • As an outstanding example of "Park Service Modern" style, as defined above, preferably one published in contemporary architectural journals or the recipient of design awards. Building may also be the subject of subsequent scholarly evaluations.

   • As the work of a regionally, nationally or internationally recognized architect or architectural firm, working for the National Park Service. Such a work must be recognized as an outstanding example of Park Service Modern design through evidence of awards and honors, critical acclaim by the press, and scholarly evaluation. Notable architects are defined as those who received high recognition as leaders in their fields and have received critical acclaim for numerous projects over a period of years in major architectural publications. The work of still-practicing architects is generally not considered eligible because the body of their work is yet to be completed and, therefore, cannot be holistically assessed for historical significance.

   • For its demonstration of distinctive programming, planning, or design features that affected the evolution of the visitor center as a building type nationally, regionally, or internationally. Building may have gained special recognition by Mission 66 planners and designers as an important stylistic example or functional prototype for the Mission 66 and Parkscape programs. Building may have served as a stylistic example or functional prototype for visitor center design in state parks, or in other settings, such as arboretums, municipal parks, etc.

   • As an essential part of an overall Mission 66 park development plan that had extraordinary importance in the history and development of an individual park. The building may be part of a larger Mission 66 development area which may be a National Register-eligible historic district.

   • For association with events and activities that have made an outstanding contribution to the history of local communities or native groups. This may include the incorporation of programmed space for craft production, demonstrations, and other activities. It may also include aspects of the inspiration for the design, such as the Mesa Verde (Farview) Visitor Center, inspired by kiva design.

III. Requirements for National Significance

The "associated historic context," "period of significance," "associated property type," and "associated architectural style" for National Historic Landmark (NHL) nomination of Mission 66 era visitor centers are all the same as described above in Requirements for Registration. In addition, any property achieving national significance within the past 50 years must possess "extraordinary national importance" to qualify as a NHL.

1. To qualify as a NHL, the visitor center should be an outstanding exemplar of Park Service Modern style in one of the following ways:

   • As the work of a nationally or internationally recognized architect or architectural firm, working for the Mission 66 program during the period 1945-1966. Such a work must be recognized as an outstanding example of Park Service Modern design through evidence of national or international awards and honors, critical acclaim by the national or international press, and scholarly evaluation. Notable architects are defined as those who received high recognition as leaders in their fields and have received critical acclaim for numerous projects over a period of years in major architectural publications. The work of still-practicing architects is generally not considered eligible because the body of their work is yet to be completed and, therefore, cannot be holistically assessed for historical significance.

   • As a foremost example of visitor center design by Park Service architects, especially Cecil Doty. To be considered a foremost example, the visitor center should be an outstanding example of "Park Service Modern" style (as defined above), preferably one published in contemporary journals or the recipient of design awards. Building may also be the subject of subsequent scholarly evaluations which demonstrate its outstanding design achievement, high artistic quality, or pivotal influence on the evolution of visitor center design in national parks, state parks, and elsewhere.

   • The visitor center should have substantial physical integrity dating to the period of signficance, 1945-1966. This should be considered a higher standard for integrity than that described above for National Register listing. Sufficient features should be intact to relate the property to the Modern movement in terms of massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows, texture of materials, and ornamentation. Characteristics critical in defining the building's artistic merit or exemplary modern design should not be altered. Essential features that should be present for a property to represent its significance include the historic main facade and entry, important public spaces inside the visitor center, and other important interior spaces that define the particular buildings's historic character and use as a visitor center.

For NHL designation, NHL Criteria 1 and 4 would apply. Criteria 1 would apply because the property is associated with events (the Mission 66 program as part of the development of the national park system) that have made a significant contribution to broad national patterns of American history. Criteria 4 would apply because the property embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen exceptionally valuable for the study of a period, style, or method of construction (Park Service Modern style).

The following NHL Themes would apply:

III. Expressing Cultural Values

       5. Architecture, Landscape Architecture, and Urban Design

VII. Transforming the Environment

       3. Protecting/Preserving the Environment

The following NHL Areas of Significance would apply:

Architecture

Landscape Architecture

Community Planning and Development

Politics/Government

The following NHL Comparative Categories would apply:

XVI. Architecture

XVII. Landscape Architecture

XXXII. Conservation of Natural Resources

XXXIV. Recreation