How a 1920s decorative fountain in Saint Paul, Minnesota was converted into an interactive splash pad
A composite case study of a beloved-but-decaying historic Beaux-Arts fountain in a downtown park that was carefully restored and adapted for interactive water play while preserving its protected historic-register status.
Summary
A 1924 Beaux-Arts decorative fountain in a downtown Saint Paul park, on the National Register of Historic Places and a beloved local landmark, was carefully converted from a non-recirculating decorative feature into an interactive recirculating splash pad through a $1.95M project that preserved its protected historic character. Construction required state historic preservation office review, federal Section 106 consultation, and a custom water-quality engineering approach. First-summer visits reached approximately 52,000, and the project has become a national reference for adaptive reuse of legacy decorative water features.
Key metrics
Background: a beloved fountain in slow decline
The Rice Park fountain was built in 1924 as part of the City Beautiful movement that shaped much of downtown Saint Paul's civic landscape. Its Beaux-Arts design featured a central bronze sculpture group, three concentric basin rings of cut limestone, and decorative water jets that produced a layered cascade across the basins. For nearly a century the fountain operated as a flow-through decorative feature, drawing roughly 20 million gallons of treated municipal water annually with no recirculation. By the late 2010s the fountain was in measurable structural distress: limestone basins had developed hairline cracks, the bronze sculpture group required conservation, and the underground mechanical room dated to a 1968 renovation that no longer met code. The city faced a choice — restore the fountain as a flow-through decorative feature at significant water and energy cost, or undertake a more ambitious adaptive-reuse project that preserved the fountain's historic character while converting it to interactive recirculating splash use. After three years of stakeholder engagement, the city chose the adaptive-reuse path.
Historic-preservation review and the Section 106 process
The fountain's National Register designation triggered both state and federal historic-preservation review. The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) required a memorandum of agreement specifying which historic features would be preserved, which could be modified, and which would be subject to ongoing monitoring. Because the project used federal historic-preservation funds, federal Section 106 review was also triggered, with consultation required between the city, the SHPO, the National Park Service, and three federally-recognized tribes with cultural interests in the broader park landscape. The Section 106 process took roughly 14 months and produced a detailed memorandum of agreement specifying twelve preservation requirements. The bronze sculpture group could be conserved but not relocated. The cut-limestone basins could be repaired but not replaced. The decorative jet pattern had to be preserved at its original spacing and geometry. New interactive features had to be reversible, meaning future generations could remove them without permanent damage to the original fabric. Material specifications, surface finishes, and lighting all required SHPO review before installation.
Engineering challenge: recirculation in a historic basin geometry
Converting a flow-through historic fountain into a recirculating interactive splash pad presented engineering challenges with limited industry precedent. The original basins had been designed for static water with periodic refresh, not for the constant circulation, filtration, and chemical treatment that interactive water features require. A specialty aquatic-engineering firm with historic-preservation experience led the design, working through three integrated challenges. First, the basin geometry could not be modified, which meant filtration and circulation had to be achieved through carefully-placed inlets and returns hidden within the existing decorative stonework. Second, the chemical treatment system had to be unobtrusive, with no visible chlorination or pH-adjustment equipment in or near the historic basin. Third, the new interactive features — added to allow children to play in the water rather than merely admire it — had to be installed in a manner reversible by future generations. The solution integrated a mechanical room within an adjacent existing utility vault (avoiding any new excavation near the fountain), used flexible-membrane liners within the historic basins (preserving the original limestone behind a removable barrier), and added six new low-profile interactive features designed for full reversibility.
Water-quality engineering and the dual-use operating mode
The fountain's water-quality engineering had to satisfy two distinct standards. Decorative-fountain water-quality requirements are minimal in most jurisdictions, while interactive splash-pad standards are stringent (matching pool-water requirements for chlorine residual, pH, turbidity, and microbial testing). The Saint Paul project chose to operate the converted fountain at the more stringent interactive-splash-pad standard year-round, even during shoulder-season periods when interactive use was reduced. This choice simplified regulatory compliance, reduced staff confusion about operating modes, and produced consistent water quality across the operating season. The recirculation system reduced annual water consumption by approximately 84% compared to the prior flow-through configuration — from roughly 20 million gallons annually to approximately 3.2 million gallons. The energy footprint also fell substantially because the prior fountain had been heating water during shoulder seasons to extend the visual operating season, an energy load the recirculating system avoided through more efficient seasonal operations.
Funding stack and the federal historic-preservation contribution
The $1.95M capital budget came from a five-source funding stack reflecting the project's hybrid character. The largest contribution, $640,000, came from the city's parks-and-recreation capital fund. A second $480,000 came from federal Historic Preservation Fund grants, which were available specifically because the fountain held National Register status and the project preserved its protected character. A third $380,000 came from a state historic-preservation grant program. A fourth $290,000 came from a regional foundation with a long-standing interest in downtown park revitalization. The remaining $160,000 came from a focused capital campaign run by the city's downtown business association, which had identified the fountain restoration as a placemaking priority. The federal and state historic-preservation contributions together — roughly 44% of total cost — would not have been available for a non-historic project, illustrating how heritage status can become a meaningful funding asset rather than purely a regulatory burden.
Public reception and the unexpected intergenerational dimension
Public reception exceeded expectations and produced one outcome the design team had not specifically engineered for. First-summer visits reached approximately 52,000 across a 95-day operating season, with peak weekend days drawing roughly 1,100 visitors. The unexpected dimension was the intergenerational character of the use pattern. The fountain's prior decorative configuration had drawn primarily older visitors who associated it with downtown civic memory and personal life events (wedding photos, retirement celebrations, civic gatherings). The interactive conversion drew younger families who had never previously visited the fountain. The two demographics now coexist in the same space, with the historic fabric serving as a visual through-line that connects generations of users. Older visitors continue using the surrounding plaza for traditional purposes, while families with young children use the interactive features. A small interpretive panel at the fountain's edge describes the 1924 design intent and the 2025 conversion, helping all visitors understand the layered history. The intergenerational outcome has become one of the most-cited cultural impacts of the project.
Replicability and the question of historic-fountain inventory
The Rice Park model is replicable in cities with historic flow-through fountains where adaptive reuse can preserve heritage character while extending public utility, but the conditions are specific. First, the historic fabric must be amenable to reversible modification — some fountains are too structurally fragile for the addition of interactive features even with careful engineering. Second, regulatory pathways through SHPO and Section 106 review can be lengthy and require dedicated staff capacity that smaller cities may lack. Third, the engineering complexity of preserving historic geometry while achieving modern water-quality compliance materially raises construction costs above standalone splash-pad budgets. Fourth, federal and state historic-preservation funding access depends on the fountain's specific designation status. There are an estimated 800 to 1,200 historic flow-through fountains in major American downtowns currently underused or facing deferred-maintenance pressure, and the Rice Park composite suggests adaptive-reuse pathways could activate a meaningful subset of this inventory while reducing aggregate water consumption substantially.
Voices from the project
“We did not want to lose the fountain. We did not want to keep wasting twenty million gallons a year either. The interactive conversion let us honor the past and reduce the waste.”
“Reversibility was the key concept. We added the interactive features in a way that future generations can remove them if they choose. That preserves the historic asset's full optionality.”
“My grandparents had wedding photos at this fountain. My grandchildren splash here. The fountain has held both meanings without losing either.”
Lessons learned
- Engage SHPO and Section 106 reviewers early — the memorandum of agreement defines project scope.
- Specify reversibility for all new interactive features — historic-preservation reviewers respond strongly to non-permanent additions.
- Operate dual-use historic fountains at interactive-splash-pad water-quality standards year-round to simplify compliance.
- Use existing utility vaults for new mechanical equipment rather than excavating adjacent to historic structures.
- Use flexible-membrane liners to protect original basin fabric while accommodating modern water-quality requirements.
- Tap federal Historic Preservation Fund grants and state historic-preservation programs — heritage status can be a meaningful funding asset.
- Add interpretive panels that bridge historic and contemporary use to support intergenerational user adoption.
FAQ
Can a National Register fountain legally be modified for interactive use?
Yes, with state historic-preservation office approval through a memorandum of agreement. The modifications must be reversible and must not damage character-defining features. Federal funding triggers Section 106 consultation.
How much water do recirculating conversions actually save?
Conversions from flow-through to recirculating operation typically reduce annual water consumption by 75% to 90%. The Rice Park composite achieved roughly 84% savings, dropping from 20 million gallons to 3.2 million annually.
What does Section 106 review involve?
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to consider effects of federally-funded projects on historic properties, in consultation with state and tribal historic-preservation offices and other consulting parties. The process produces a memorandum of agreement specifying mitigation requirements.
Related reports & data
Pair this case study with our original-data reports for citation and benchmarking.