2001-2010 Retrospective of Courthouse Design

RRetrospective ourthouse D Design esign etrospective of of Courthouse 2001-2010

National Center

for

State Courts

Retrospective of Courthouse Design 2001-2010

Chang Ming Yeh, Project Director National Center for State Courts • Williamsburg, Virginia USA

Contact Information Headquarters: 300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, Virginia 23185 USA

Court Consulting 707 17th Street, Suite 2900 Denver, Colorado 80202 USA (Ph) 1-800-466-3063

Website www.ncsc.org

Graphic Design Scott Preator Anaconda Printing 1820 Lincoln Street Denver, Colorado 80203 USA (Ph) 303-534-5525

ON THE COVER: Left to Right: (top row) New Singapore Court Building, Singapore; Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse, Denver, CO; Renfrew County Courthouse, Pembroke, Ontario; (middle row) Osceola County Government Center, Kissimmee, FL; George Allen Sr. Courthouse, Dallas, TX; Onondaga County/City of Syracuse Courthouse, Syracuse, NY; (bottom row) Spottswood W. Robinson III and Robert R. Merhige Jr. U.S. Courthouse, Richmond, VA; United States Courthouse, Laredo, TX; John Adams Courthouse, Boston, MA. Back cover: John Adams Courthouse, Boston, MA. Copyright 2010, The National Center for State Courts All rights reserved ISBN: 978-0-89656-276-9

ii

Hon. Robert A. Mulligan, Juror

Robert Wayne Drummond, Juror

Hon. Robert A. Mulligan is the Chief Justice for the Administration and Management of the Massachusetts Trial Court and served as the Chief Justice of the Superior Court from 1994 to 1 999. During his current tenure, Chief Justice Mulligan deployed a strategic plan for major capital upgrades to trial court facilities including construction of several new regional justice centers. Chief Justice Mulligan is a recipient of the Distinguished Service Award bestowed by the NCSC.

Reinkensmeyer, Juror

Professor Drummond is the Dean of the College of Architecture at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Professor Drummond is currently an ex-offico member of the Executive Board Nebraska AIA. He has served as National Chairman of the AIA Architects in Education Committee and was the National President of the ACSA. Mr. Drummond completed a two-year appointment by Governor Chiles as a member of the Governor’s Study Commission on Building Codes and Standards for the State of Florida.

Robert A. Boyle, AIA, Juror

Mr. Reinkensmeyer is the past president of the National Association for Court Management, former Editor of the NACM Court Manager journal, and past President of the AZ Courts Association. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Court Management of the NCSC and recipient of ICM’s Award of Merit, the Supreme Court of Arizona’s Distinguished Service Award, and the Warren E. Burger Award of Excellence in Court Administration by the NCSC.

Mr. Boyle is a distinguished architect and recognized leader in the field of Justice architecture in the United States. Mr. Boyle has served as a consultant for the NCSC, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), and as an instructor at the National Academy of Corrections’ (NAC) Planning of New Institutions (PONI) program. Mr. Boyle was responsible for the review and editing of three editions of the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code.

Rona G. Rothenberg, FAIA, Juror Rona is a Senior Manager for the statewide Design and Construction Team for the Judicial Council of California AOC Office of Court Construction and Management. Ms. Rothenberg has held senior staff positions with the School of Medicine at Stanford University. She is a member of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Architects and served as a leader in design and construction projects for over 100 capital projects.

Chang-Ming Yeh, Project Director

Don Hardenbergh, Editor

Chang-Ming Yeh is a Principal Judicial Facility Planner with the NCSC. Mr. Yeh has been leading the NCSC’s court facility consulting team assisting state and local governments and courts on their master plan, courthouse pre-design planning and programming, and courthouse technology projects. Mr. Yeh is the coauthor of The Courthouse: A Planning and Design for Court Facilities and the author of NCSC’s Court Facility ADA Accessibilities Self Evaluation Guide.

Don Hardenbergh is a nationally recognized planning professional specializing in justice facility planning, and the owner of Court Works Mr. Hardenbergh is the author of The Courthouse: A Planning and Design Guide for Court Facilities.

Alisa Kim, Chief Staff Editor

Nathan Hall, Staff Editor

Alisa Kim is a graduate from the University of Colorado at Boulder with a degree in English Literature. Ms. Kim has edited and assisted on numerous projects for the NCSC.

Nathan Hall is a LEED certified registered architect and court management consultant for the NCSC. Mr. Hall provides technical assistance to state and local courts on their facility planning and design projects.

Todd Phillips, Ph.D., AIA, Editor Todd Phillips is an architect specializing in research, planning, and design for courthouse facilities at the state and federal levels. Mr. Phillips has collaborated with the NCSC on the previous Retrospective of Courthouse Design.

David Sayles, Staff Editor David Sayles has worked with the NCSC as a project analyst assisting in strategic planning analysis, design and architectural evaluation, and master plan development.

iii

Table of Contents Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix The Virtual Courthouse: A Clear Trend … Except for the Human Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii A Few Thoughts about Court Architecture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix Back to the Future: Renovated, Rehabilitated, Re-Programmed Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xx

Federal Courts Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse • Fresno, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Seattle Federal Courthouse • Seattle, Washington. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Spottswood W. Robinson III and Robert R. Merhige, Jr., U.S. Courthouse • Richmond, Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 United States Courthouse • Jacksonville, Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 United States Courthouse • Rockford, Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 United States Courthouse • Laredo, Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 United States District Courthouse • Orlando, Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 United States District Courthouse • Alpine, Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 United States Federal Courthouse • Bakersfield, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 United States Federal Courthouse • Davenport, Iowa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Warren E. Burger Federal Building and United States Courthouse • St Paul, Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Warren E. Burger United States Federal Courthouse — Interim Courthouse • St. Paul, Minnesota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Appellate Courts Connecticut Appellate Courthouse • Hartford, Connecticut. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DC Court of Appeals • Washington, DC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Harris County 1910 Courthouse • Houston, Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

John Adams Courthouse • Boston, Massachusetts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New York State Court of Appeals • Albany, New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ohio Judicial Center • Columbus, Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Old Post Office / Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District • St. Louis, Missouri. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania Judicial Center • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Complex • Denver, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34 36 38 40 44 46 48 50 52

General Jurisdiction Courts Brooklyn Supreme and Family Courthouse • Brooklyn, New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Berkeley County Judicial Center • Martinsburg, West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Calaveras County Courthouse • Andreas, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Clark County Regional Justice Center • Las Vegas, Nevada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Clay County Courthouse • Green Cove Springs, Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cumberland County Justice Center • Burkesville, Kentucky. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

El Paso County Terry R. Harris Judicial Complex • Colorado Springs, Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Essex County Courthouse • Newark, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56 60 62 64 68 70 72 74

v

Fairfax County Courthouse • Fairfax, Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Fall River Justice Center • Fall River, Massachusetts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Franklin County Courthouse • Columbus, Ohio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 George Allen Sr. Courthouse • Dallas, Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Harlan County Justice Center • Harlan, Kentucky. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Haywood County Justice Center • Waynesville, North Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Hialeah Courthouse • Hialeah, Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center • Salem, Massachusetts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Jefferson County Courthouse • Watertown, New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Justice A.A. Birch Courthouse Nashville-Davidson County Courthouse • Nashville, Tennessee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Kim C. Hammond Justice Center Flagler County Courthouse • Bunnell, Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Lake County Judicial Center • Tavares, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Larimer County Justice Center • Fort Collins, Colorado. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Lehigh County Courthouse • Allentown, Pennsylvania. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Leighton Judicial Complex Rhode Island Supreme Court • Warwick, Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Lexington-Fayette Courthouse Complex Robert F. Stephens District and Circuit Courthouses • Lexington, Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse • Denver, Colorado. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Lorain County Justice Center • Elyria, Ohio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Loudoun County Courthouse • Leesburg, Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Mammoth Lakes Courthouse • Mammoth Lakes, California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Manatee County Judicial Center • Bradenton, Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Maricopa County Courts Project • Phoenix, Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Mecklenburg County Courthouse • Charlotte, North Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Montgomery County Judicial Center Annex • Rockville, Maryland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 19th Judicial District Courthouse • Baton Rouge, Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Norfolk Consolidated Courts Complex • Norfolk, Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Northampton County Government Center • Easton, Pennsylvania. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Onondaga County / City of Syracuse Courthouse • Syracuse, New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Osceola County Government Center • Kissimmee, Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Penobscot Judicial Center • Bangor, Maine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Plymouth Trial Court • Plymouth, Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Richard E. Arnason Justice Center • Pittsburg, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Richard J. Daronco Westchester County Courthouse • White Plains, New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Richmond County Judicial Center • Rockingham, North Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Robertson County Justice Center • Mt. Olivet, Kentucky. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 San Bernardino Courthouse • San Bernardino, California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 San Joaquin County Courthouse • Lodi, California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Staten Island Courthouse • St. George, Staten Island, New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

vi

Superior Court of California, Plumas-Sierra • Portola, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Taunton Trial Court • Taunton, Massachusetts, USA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wake County Justice Center • Raleigh, North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington County Courthouse • Stillwater, Minnesota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Worcester Trial Court • Worcester, Massachusetts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

York County Judicial Center • York County, Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

160 162 164 166 168 170

Specialty and Limited Jurisdiction Courts Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center • San Leandro, California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Arizona State Courts Building New Data Center • Phoenix, Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Bridgeport Superior Court for Juvenile Matters and Detention Center • Bridgeport, Connecticut. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Gilbert Municipal Court and Public Safety Complex • Gilbert, Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Glendale City Courthouse • Glendale, Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Kapolei Judiciary Complex • Kapolei, O‘ahu, Hawaii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Loveland Police and Courts Building • Loveland, Colorado. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Metropolitan Courthouse • Nashville, Tennessee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Miami-Dade Children’s Courthouse • Miami, Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Mills B. Lane Justice Center • Reno, Nevada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 New York County Family Court • New York, New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 The New York Judicial Institute, Pace University Law School • White Plains, NY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 Niagara Falls Municipal Complex • Niagara Falls, New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 Queens Family Court and City Agency Facility • Jamaica, New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 Seattle Justice Center • Seattle, Washington, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Wayne County Municipal Court • Wooster, Ohio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

International Al-Farwania and Al Jahra Court Complexes • Al-Reggae and Al-Jahra Areas of Kuwait . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Calgary Courts Centre • Calgary, Alberta, Canada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Supreme Court Building • Singapore. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Renfrew County Courthouse • Pembroke, Ontario, Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Roma Mitchell Commonwealth Law Courts, Adelaide • Adelaide, Australia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Victorian County Court • Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

214 216 220 222 224 226

Index of Architects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

228

vii

Introduction

Don Hardenbergh and Todd S. Phillips This third edition of the Retrospective of Courthouse Design, 2001- 2010 continues a process that began with the publication of the first Retrospective in 1992 and then followed with the publication of the second in 2001. Like the first two, the current book attempts to capture noteworthy projects developed over the course of a decade. We now have 30 years of projects representing a vast body of work on a decade by decade basis. Viewed together, these projects tell us many things about the current state of courthouse planning and design, where it has been in earlier years, and where it might be heading in the future.

The Call for Entries: Criteria and Interests The projects presented in this edition were submitted in response to a Call for Entries issued by the National Center for State Courts during the winter of 2009-2010.

The entries were reviewed by a jury comprised of justice system professionals and courts planning and design professionals.

The Call for Entries asked the design firms to provide an overview description and technical data for each project, supplemental information about the greatest challenges they encountered in their project, main features of their design solution, and their experience as it may have related to such things as: • Alternative dispute resolution, therapeutic justice, public self-help centers, victim/ witness accommodation, and other special operations-related issues or practices • Planning, programming, and design innovation • Construction materials and methods • Sustainability and the environment • Accessibility design • Security design • Technology

The jurors’ review of the submissions looked for the extent to which the projects exemplified current principles of best practice regarding such fundamentals as controlled circulation systems, proper zoning for optimal adjacencies, full accessibility, security, and so on. The jurors also looked for fresh and meaningful expressions of courthouse planning and design that addressed the importance of the courts and their role in community life, judicial independence, and the image or face of justice reflected in the buildings.

The Descriptive Profile of the projects shows how they are distributed across a variety of categories from level and type of court to number of courtrooms and average construction cost. A discussion of General Observations and Trends relating to architectural planning and design notes a number of the things that the projects reveal in terms of both new and enduring design priorities.

Descriptive Profile (see Table 1) There are 96 projects published in this edition of the Retrospective; 94 of which are courthouses. There is also a judicial training center (The New York Judicial Institute) and a statewide IT center for the Arizona Supreme Court. Of the courthouses, over half are general jurisdiction, state level trial courts of which ten (10 percent) are renovation/addition projects. Special jurisdiction projects are generally juvenile/family or municipal courts. They comprise 16 percent of the projects. Of the special jurisdiction projects, many are combined court/law enforcement buildings such as the Loveland, Colorado project.

There are 12 Federal courthouses and nine Appellate Court projects. Several of the Appellate projects are renovation/historic restoration projects, such as the Ohio Judicial Center and the DC Court of Appeals.

Table 1: Descriptive Profile Number of Projects

% of Projects

Average BGSF

Average Construction Cost (millions)

Average Cost / BGSF

Average Number of Courtrooms

Cost per Courtroom

Net / Gross

Appellate

9

9.6%

267,796

$77.9

$291

NA

NA

67.8%

Federal

12

12.8%

272,055

$63.4

$233

9

$7,316,346

67.2%

Renovation .

10

10.6%

194,378

$33.4

$172

12.2

$2,740,164

81.3%

General Jurisdiction

42

44.7%

545,640

$153.5

$281

35.9

$4,280,273

67.4%

Special Jurisdiction

15

16.0%

163,633

$48.9

$299

9

$5,602,290

68.6%

Inernational

6

6.4%

735,488

unknown

NA

56

NA

unknown

Project Type

(General Jurisdiction)

ix

There are six projects in the International category: two from Australia, two from Canada, and one each from Singapore and Kuwait. The Singapore courthouse is a combined trial and appellate court facility; while the others are all general jurisdiction trial courts with both civil and criminal jurisdiction.

Geographic Distribution Of the 94 projects, 28 percent are from the East, 23 percent from the South, 15 percent from the Midwest, 27 percent from the West, and 6 percent are International.

Size While the average size of the projects is relatively large, projects in all categories ranged from the small to the very large. The federal projects ranged in size from 38,000 square feet (Alpine, Texas) to 615,000 square feet (Seattle Federal Courthouse). The appellate projects ranged from 72,000 (Missouri Court of Appeals) to 700,000 square feet (Colorado Judicial Complex). The trial courts ranged from the 7,000 square foot courthouse in Plumas-Sierra, California to the 1.1 million square foot Brooklyn Supreme and Family Courthouse.

The large average number of courtrooms per project among the International projects is skewed by the 180 courtrooms in the Al-Farwania and Al Jahra Court Complexes in Kuwait and the 73 courtrooms in the Calgary Courts Centre.

The average net-to-gross ratios are all nearly identical (67-68 percent) except for the renovation projects which come in at 81 percent. This is based on only four of the ten projects because of missing information, and two of these projects also had reported net assigned areas that were suspiciously high. The two remaining projects had net to gross ratios in the 76 percent range.

Cost Cost per Square Foot

Cost per Courtroom (millions)

East

$320

$5.5

South

$196

$3.2

Midwest

$184

$2.2

West

$365

$4.4

Region

x

Interestingly, the federal projects cost less per square foot on average than the state level courts ($233/ square feet versus $284/ square feet). The Appellate, General Jurisdiction, and Special Jurisdiction projects all cost approximately the same on average, even though many of the appellate projects are renovation/historic restoration projects. The General Jurisdiction courts in the Renovation category were the least expensive at $172/ square foot.

The cost per square foot among the General Jurisdiction trial courts varied considerably by region as did the cost per courtroom. The cost ranged from an average of $184/ square foot in the Midwest to $365/ square foot in the West. Similarly, the Midwest had the least expensive courtrooms at an average cost of $2.2 million. The cost was highest in the East at $5.5 million per courtroom.

Single Purpose versus Multi-Purpose / Multi-Occupant Nearly all of the projects are dedicated court facilities.

The exceptions are primarily the municipal court/police projects such as the Larimer County Justice Center in Fort Collins, Colorado or the Gilbert Municipal Court and Public Safety Complex in Gilbert, Arizona. The Queens Family Court is housed with city social service agencies that support the court, and the Alameda Juvenile Court is located with the detention center.

Several projects are part of a larger, pre-existing judicial or government complex such as the NashvilleDavidson County Courthouse, the Wake County Justice Center in Raleigh, North Carolina, the Manatee County Judicial Center in Bradenton, Florida, and the Norfolk Consolidated Courthouse in Norfolk, Virginia.

Many projects also emphasized their role in downtown or urban revitalization such as the Glendale City Courthouse in Glendale, Arizona.

Procurement Method Approximately 40 percent (39) of the projects were procured through the traditional Design-Bid-Build approach; and 29 percent (27) of the projects used a Construction Manager or Construction Manager-atRisk. There were nine Design-Build projects, including the very large facility in Calgary, Canada. It is worth noting that a number of the recent and current Canadian projects are procured using a Design-BuildFinance method.

Financing The two most common financing methods are a general fund appropriation and General Obligation Bonds (GOB).

In some cases, the GOB was supplemented with other revenue such as court fees, revenue bonds, or general fund appropriation. One project in Bridgeport, Connecticut was financed through a public-private partnership. Two of the historic renovation projects received some funding through historic preservation grants.

here, but the Brooklyn Supreme and Family Courthouse takes them to an advanced level. With 84 courtrooms and a large number of court-related agencies, as well as private lease space, the building stacks a remarkably challenging program onto a tight urban site with no room for setbacks. The pieces of the program puzzle go together in a tower with several vertical circulation cores and plans that the designers describe as “like a Swiss watch.”

The Federal Courthouse in Alpine, Texas and the Niagara Falls Municipal Court Complex in Niagara Falls, New York were both funded through lease purchase arrangements and were also design-build undertakings. The Richmond, North Carolina project was financed through a commercial bank loan. Certificates of Participation (COP) were used in three projects. Three projects were funded solely by court fees and a few others used court fees to supplement other financing methods.

Architectural Planning and Design: Some General Observations and Trends The profiles of the projects underscore the great diversity in terms of court type, size, location, cost, and architecture. A complementary overview of the body of work as a whole would require many additional observations before one could begin to round out a sense of what has been addressed and accomplished in the last several years. The remarks below note only a few of these things beginning with some interesting strategies for building organization and massing and concluding with acknowledgment of the continuing openness in courthouse design despite the security-related dangers of the times.

Alternative Massing Strategies Basic principles of best practice regarding circulation systems and zoning for major functions have clearly become standard attributes of courthouse planning and design. It is taken for granted today that public, private, and secure paths of movement in the courthouse will be provided, and that the vertical organization of the building from the ground up will keep high traffic functions as close to grade level as possible with more controlled areas located above. Section diagrams for projects almost invariably show adjudication space stacked on top of clerical and administrative support space.

These stacking strategies are illustrated with textbook clarity by several of the high-rise projects included

A different massing strategy that we have not seen to the same extent in previous editions of the Retrospective appears in other large projects. This approach separates the clerical and other support space in a low-rise volume positioned alongside a taller volume consisting of the court floors. The adjudication space is in its own volume rising up many levels while the support operations are in an adjoining portion of the project that is lower. The federal courthouse in Seattle illustrates this alternative handling of the functional organization and massing.

The Seattle site was generous enough that the designers could break out the support functions in a sleek building form that stands alongside a tower containing courtrooms and chambers. Similarly, the Superior Court in San Bernardino, California is being developed as a high-rise mass for its 35 courtrooms with a low-rise

xi

support volume alongside. Like Seattle, San Bernardino also will have a plaza space in front that calls out the main entry.

Court Floor Layouts and Collegial Chambers As with previous Retrospectives, single-loaded court floor schemes appear to be the layout of choice in most of the projects. Bar and L-shaped plans are used in buildings at every scale and on every type of site.

This pattern suggests that single-loaded layouts are inherently more adaptable to different site conditions, especially when the number of courtrooms involved is modest. Single-loaded schemes may be more desirable for narrower floor plates and provide greater opportunities for the introduction of natural light to interior spaces. The large expanses of glazing along public corridors outside the courtrooms also tend to encourage a different kind of imagery with a heavy reliance on curtain wall systems.

Double-loaded court floor layouts remain prominent, however, as demonstrated by several large projects that successfully avoid the problems of excessive crowding in the corridor and insufficient natural light that plagued such layouts in the past. The Federal Courthouse in Jacksonville, Florida has each court floor containing four courtrooms arrayed in a four-square layout in which two pairs of courtrooms face each other across a central corridor. The space in between is open at each end with expansive glazing and waiting areas where panoramic views of the outdoors are provided. The Maricopa County Courts Project in Phoenix, Arizona takes a similar approach with the provision of ample light and views on its court floor. The layout skillfully includes other functional areas without any sense of compaction or claustrophobia.

We have seen high-rise volumes combined with lowrise elements where the latter have been developed as spaces for the security screening process and perhaps a jury assembly space. Examples of this from the Retrospective in 2001 include the federal courthouses in Denver, Colorado and Sacramento, California.

The functional organization and massing strategies illustrated in the Seattle and San Bernardino projects, and in several others to varying degrees, are different and potentially rich with architectural possibilities for the future. If the site can accommodate it, the stepped massing makes it possible to develop an entry sequence for the visitor that is less intimidating with larger projects. The separate volume for clerical and other support may be easier to develop in ways that provide everyone with higher quality space, and allied professionals or services requiring after hours access might also be housed more safely.

xii

The double-loaded layout is then taken a step farther in several other low- and mid-rise projects. They develop the corridor space between the courtrooms as an open atrium with balcony-like overlooks in the center and skylights overhead that add extra interest and spatial drama to the court floor. The projects in Calaveras County, California, York, Pennsylvania, and Worcester, Massachusetts are particularly noteworthy in this regard.

“Let There Be Light” and “Whole Building” Design Reviewing the first two editions of the Retrospective reminds one that, nearly 20 years ago when a resurgence of courthouse design began with the federal “Design Excellence” program in the lead, the discussion of design tended to be dominated by questions of civic presence and how to handle the courtroom. The character and configuration of the building’s core space — the courtroom — aroused different opinions about how traditional its design should be, the pros and cons of center bench and diagonal bench layouts, and how to deal with the sudden influx of electronicsbased technologies that began to flood into the space by the mid-1990’s. A lot of design energy was focused on the challenges posed by new technologies for the presentation of evidence and argument, taking the record, and assisting the hearing and visually impaired.

Meanwhile, the courtroom modules tended to be entombed spaces removed inboard from the building perimeter by private circulation routes and concerns about security.

The projects in this Retrospective demonstrate a clear evolution beyond those earlier priorities –suggesting that the courtroom design challenges that surfaced in the 1990’s have now been worked out—and the emergence of a new priority that involves the introduction of natural light. There were examples of modern courtrooms with natural light in earlier Retrospectives, but the emphasis upon light has become more widespread as a primary goal. A variety of techniques for bringing light into the courtroom directly or on a borrowed basis are illustrated in the projects and reflect appreciation for the virtues of natural light in often stressful settings.

The projects suggest that collegial floor layouts for the judges’ chambers are becoming more commonplace and are showing up in both single and double-loaded court floor schemes. (The collegial approach is now deemed preferable in Canadian courts). The clustering of chambers on a separate floor from the courtrooms, or in a separate zone on the same floor, may not necessarily represent a trend towards more sharing of courtrooms by the judges, but it has a major affect upon building massing and is clearly being used effectively by design teams.

xiii

projects. When one adds to the renovation projects the number of other ones involving new construction joined to an existing building, as well as new standalone buildings inserted into settings where other related facilities are present nearby, it becomes apparent that courthouse design today involves a direct and physically concrete encounter with courthouse design yesterday.

Roughly one out of four projects from the 2001-2010 period ties back to earlier buildings in some way.

In recent years, a complementary evolution has taken place emphasizing higher quality environments across the range of building functions. Numerous projects currently reflect an emphasis upon whole building design that has been growing since the late 1990’s.

Today, the space designed for court staff and work processing areas is far more likely to feature improved environmental controls, reasonable proximity to a perimeter wall with access to daylight and view, and ergonomically adequate workstations that can support current desktop technology without tripping over the wires. Similar advances are being made with the design of public space that reflects greater awareness of the need for safe, easily comprehensible corridors and light-filled waiting areas. The updating by the federal courts of the U.S. Courts Design Guide in the last several years recognized the need to address public space more successfully as an A to Z continuum that extends from the main entrance to the various destinations. Many of the state level projects illustrated show similar attention to the public portions of the building which, while not “programmed space” strictly speaking, are essential to its success.

The renovation and rehabilitation work includes several examples of appellate courts that are major, iconic structures over a century old. They have been restored to a former glory, sometimes repairing damage done by 20th Century remodeling, while being comprehensively upgraded with some modification and all new engineered systems required to operate at an advanced level today.

The oldest courthouse, the DC Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, now features state-of-the-art capabilities for operations that are discreetly housed inside its staid exterior.

Other renovation projects in the same group, such as the Missouri Courts of Appeal, Eastern District in St. Louis, the John Adams Courthouse in Boston, Massachusetts, and the New York State Court of Appeals in Albany have beautifully ornate, sumptuous interiors that combine fine materials and craftsmanship with dramatic space.

Equally impressive for the richness of its design in the high Beaux-Arts style is the Essex County Court by Cass Gilbert. The architects who brought Gilbert’s building back to life managed everything from the insertion of 21st Century building systems to the restoration of murals.

Overall, this edition of the Retrospective confirms a trend towards more complete and balanced whole building design. Some of the qualitative unevenness from one functional area or system of a building to another that could be observed in earlier years has been smoothed out and replaced by a more uniformly sophisticated approach.

The Presence of the Past: Renovation and Rehabilitation Projects There is a lot of work in this Retrospective that involves reckoning with existing brick and mortar and it includes striking examples of major renovation and rehabilitation

xiv

20th Century courthouses from the periods before and after WWII also figure prominently in the group of buildings that have been re-worked for continued

service. A pre-WWII federal building and courthouse in Davenport, Iowa has been converted to a courts only facility. Inside its low key, low-rise exterior, an expanded courts program has been inserted that reflects an impressive combination of architectural imagination, technical skill, and careful judgment about what can and should be restored from the original.

Two noteworthy post-WWII projects are examples of “mid-Century Modernist” buildings of the kind that are expected to challenge courthouse planners and designers more frequently in the future. One is the George Allen Sr. Courthouse in Dallas, Texas originally dating from 1964 where a large, box-like modernist structure sits next to a civic plaza. Inside the box, designers have renovated and reconfigured the spaces and inserted advanced systems for both building performance and technology-intensive courtroom proceedings. Another project from the 1960’s, the New York County Family Court building in New York City, addressed the problem of a seriously dysfunctional layout inside the original building and the growing demands of family law operations. Considerable architectural skill and patience over a number of years transformed the building into something highly functional, appealing, and relevant as an example of what can be done in similar situations with mid-Century Modernist buildings elsewhere.

Traditional architectural expressions, especially those that allude to classicism in some form, appear to show up most where the new work is relating to an older building nearby or to something else in the immediate context that encourages a traditional response.

Existing civic buildings can cast long and influential shadows over the sites for new buildings in the vicinity.

The physical context, as distinct from established conceptions of an “architecture of justice,” may be the primary drivers of the design in many of these cases.

The new Colorado Judicial Complex in Denver with its traditionally domed volume in front, for example, is sited a short distance from the State Capitol building and on the edge of a grand Beaux-Arts civic core to which the court’s architects have deferred. It is easy to understand how difficult it might have been to pursue a non-traditional architecture in this location.

Other locations where there is no existing civic work present are more likely to encourage a non-traditional architecture that has only a distant and abstracted relation, if any, to the world of columns, pediments, domes, and arches. When the architects do not have to reckon with something from the past across the street, they may feel at greater liberty to develop a different language of forms. Noteworthy examples in this connection include two projects in Florida.

The U.S. Courthouse in Orlando, Florida commands a largely open site with forms that convey great clarity, simplicity, and self-possession to the point where the building appears to transcend mere style. In Miami, the new Miami-Dade Children’s Courthouse also illustrates an architecture that is animated by something else that, in this case, is a concern for the experience of young people. The building’s exterior has a lively articulation and its interiors are designed to be as interesting, comprehensible, and non-threatening as possible.

Judicial Imagery: The Many Faces of Justice Today Scanning all of the projects together reminds one of the great variety today in terms of what a courthouse looks like. Judicial imagery appears to be many things.

It invites one to speculate about why this is so and what it might be saying about possible directions for courthouse design in the future.

xv

forms for courthouses, if only because a significant percentage of judicial brick and mortar involves older buildings that live on in the justice system through various incarnations. The presence of truly grand old structures serves as a touchstone for courts designers and a reminder that there is much in the older work that is functional and appealing.

At the same time, there is every reason to anticipate more exploration of new forms as judicial operations evolve in response to new needs and as building performance requirements generate new design and construction strategies. The variety of architectural expression that appears in the work from 2001-2010 may be only a hint of what the next several years will see.

Eschewing an “Architecture of Fear:” Affirming Openness and the Public Nature of Justice The variety of architectural expression in the whole body of work defies any single explanation or conclusion. It can be interpreted variously as either disconcerting or encouraging. One view would ask if we are seeing signs of a general retreat by the architects from the search for a viable, widely resonant, and commonly shared architecture of justice. Have the mounting technical challenges in courthouse design become so demanding that they have overwhelmed an ability to reflect deeply in the design process on the symbolic dimension of centerpiece civic buildings? Are these challenges being compounded further by the bewildering diversity of the populations to be served and by the increasingly demanding project procurement and delivery processes that can sap the architect’s mental and financial resources? Is an exhaustion factor starting to kick in before one is able to think very hard about the larger meanings of the work?

Or, alternatively, is the variety of expression an encouraging sign that courthouse design is keeping pace admirably with the messy dynamism and demographics of society today? Is there a turning away from the view that an architecture of justice should exhibit some recognizable menu of forms and motifs?

Are conceptions of judicial imagery for the exteriors of buildings giving way to greater emphasis upon the planning principles that now guide the organization of their interiors? If so, does a shift of emphasis to sound planning and design from the inside out signal a positive step forward towards new ways of making courthouse design relevant to everyone?

Looking ahead, it is reasonable to expect a continuing and vibrant engagement with traditional architectural

xvi

Perhaps the most noteworthy thing about the projects shown here is the resounding evidence they provide that courthouse design has not lapsed into an architecture of fear in response to the reality of terrorist threats.

The bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 indicated that major public buildings can be targets. The subsequent terrorist attacks in 2001 sent shockwaves everywhere, and the years since have become the longest period of armed conflict abroad in American history. Against this background of terrorism and war, courthouse planning and design has refused to descend into fortress-like defensiveness. Instead, it is a stunning achievement that there has been a clear push in the opposite direction towards greater openness.

This affirmation of transparency and the public nature of judicial processes is doubly impressive when one recalls the hard work involved with the development of new security design methods and systems, and with the implementation of them as unobtrusively as possible. Some project budgets have been skewed by security requirements and there have been awkward trade-offs in individual designs, certainly, but the public spirit of courthouse design has not been dampened by the need to keep the buildings safe. Indeed, there may even be ironically beneficial effects of security conscious design in the form of building setback requirements that actually enhance the civic presence of the structure. Similarly, concerns about security screening for different flows of people entering a multi-occupant courts and noncourts building may also reinforce a focus on single purpose, courts-only facilities that can express the independence of the Third Branch more convincingly than a hybrid “government center.”

International Projects The picture presented of current practice in the United States is complemented by examples of very sophisticated work in other countries as far away as Singapore and Kuwait. The smallest project in the International category, the Renfrew County Courthouse in Pembroke Ontario, Canada, involves a deft combination of old and new with stone, steel, and glass. The most exuberant design with varied volumes and materials appears with the new Roma Mitchell Commonwealth Law Courts in Adelaide, Australia that houses four different jurisdictions under the same roof.

The two largest built projects are the high-rise courthouse with 73 courtrooms in the Calgary Courts Centre in Calgary, Canada, and the nine-story courthouse in Singapore topped with a huge, almost hovering dome.

Both projects are striking in numerous ways, beginning with the exceptionally rational arrangement of the forms and the combination of large scale with elegant details and articulation. The overall logic of the buildings and the hierarchy of functions are easy to comprehend, thereby making the density of their functional programs less daunting to the visitor trying to find his or her way around. Both buildings also possess a formality which, in its straightforwardness and refinement, identifies them as distinguished civic places.

Conclusion Many things can be said about the projects presented in this edition of the Retrospective. The list is virtually endless of issues that deserve discussion - from things that pertain to the design and construction of courthouses in technical terms to the evolving nature of some judicial operations that are driving a return to the drawing board for new kinds of spaces, layouts, and imagery.

Viewing these projects alongside earlier ones presented in the first two Retrospectives — a remarkable composite picture that catches 30 years of courthouse work — it is clear that tremendous change has taken place since 1980. The building type has become far more programmatically complicated and technically demanding than ever. At the same time, the skills and creativity of the planners and designers who are taking on the challenges have progressed correspondingly, and they are more advanced and broadly ranging now than at any time before. The outcomes with the buildings overall are not uniform, but they are notably impressive on the whole for the continuing commitments and creativity that they reflect.

xvii

The Virtual Courthouse: A Clear Trend … Except for the Human Factor

By Marcus W. Reinkensmeyer1

In this rapidly evolving digital age, court technology can facilitate on-line 24/7 access to case information and court services. With continuing advances in technology and economic incentives, the scope of electronic court services will continue to expand in the foreseeable future. The timely resolution of criminal, juvenile, and family cases however, involves extensive stakeholder interaction with an array of in-person support services. Further, the success of problem-solving courts, such as drug courts and mental health courts, underscores the need for close collaboration among all participants and intense stakeholder interaction at the courthouse. Overall, the quality of justice and public trust are enhanced by the direct, personal interaction of litigants and system stakeholders. Thus, court leaders and architects will face exceedingly difficult decisions regarding court service delivery systems and the required supporting court facilities.

With recent advances in technology and the growth of e-commerce, courts are in the midst of a strong push to provide e-government services to the public. Litigants are no longer content to view static case history and calendar information via the court’s website; rather, they expect instant access to web-based judicial branch services via personal computing devices including smart phones and tablet computers. Many courts are making the transition to e-filing, e-payments, e-court forms, and electronic documents access. One jurisdiction has deployed remote jury summonsing systems in lieu of a physical jury assembly room; a model being considered by other jurisdictions as well.

… except for the critical human factor. Arguably, the most advanced technology notwithstanding, some key judicial processes are best administered on-site via a person-to-person exchange. While video appearances will suffice for consumer law and other selected case types, this physical presence may well remain a critical factor in determining the credibility of criminal case witnesses, jury deliberations, settlement activities in high conflict cases, and party linkage to social services.

Some of the most successful courthouse projects highlighted in this Retrospective appear to have contemplated this uncertain future, incorporating a high degree of flexibility into the accommodation of court operations. The flexibility is achieved through the use of modular office space, re-configurable officecourtroom space, shelled space, and upgradeable technology infrastructure, e.g., recessed courtroom floors to accommodate system reconfiguration and equipment upgrades. Best practices in architectural programming are evident in these projects, which serve as a model for other jurisdictions.

In some ways, the thinking about co-located justice services is coming full circle. Historically, the traditional town square courthouse provided a full-service government center housing the courts, jail, sheriff, legal offices, probation, and city/county administrative functions. This co-location model remains in place in many rural and less populous jurisdictions, although many of these courthouses are experiencing tremendous growing pains.

Court video teleconferencing holds considerable promise for improving both efficiency and accessibility, while also giving rise to a myriad of legal and practical questions regarding its efficacy. Video criminal arraignments are now commonplace in many jurisdictions and save time and money in the transport of in-custody defendants. Additionally, expert witnesses can appear in court via video conference saving transportation costs and improving witness availability. It is impossible to know the extent to which video appearances will be expanded to dispositive court hearings, trials, orders of protections, etc.; however, coupled with Green government initiatives and recent improvements in video quality, the deployment of such technologies in trial courts is only likely to accelerate.

Presently, however, most urban court buildings, such as those appearing in this Retrospective, are single-purpose judicial facilities housing courtrooms and direct court support functions (e.g., clerk’s office, jury office) as opposed to being a multi-functional facility containing executive branch and social service support functions.

While this is the predominant model evident in this ten year retrospective of some 94 courthouse projects, the Retrospective also includes several notable fullservice family/juvenile and criminal courthouses such as the Queens Family Court and City Agency Facility in Jamaica, New York; and the Miami-Dade Children’s Courthouse in Miami, Florida that houses attorneys, probation, and social service support functions all under one roof.2

Conceivably, the judicial system could operate largely via video hearings and electronic documents, and establish on-line customer service centers or virtual courthouses.

This alternative future would seem to be the clear trend, not only for courts but for most government services

While the technology exists for courts to become a decentralized collection of remotely accessed services using e-commerce, e-filing, and video conferencing, there is the realization that some matters (family, juvenile, etc.) require the provision of direct person-

xviii

to-person interactions; thus, we see a new effort to consolidate courts and support functions in one location.

Ideally, new courthouse construction should be developed in the context of a comprehensive, longrange master space plan addressing both on-site and remote electronic service delivery systems and supporting space requirements. Extensive architectural programming is required to address the long-term

implications of emerging court technologies, process re-engineering, and changing service expectations based upon demographic trends. Courts must plan and budget for not only a large investment in sustainable and scalable technology infrastructure to support remote court services, but physical justice centers that are co-located with trial courts for one-stop resolution of stakeholder-intensive cases (e.g., family, juvenile, criminal cases and mental heath cases).

Reinkensmeyer, M., et al., “Today’s Version of Yesterday’s Vision of Tomorrow’s Courthouse,” for the American Institute of Architecture, Academy of Architecture for Justice, Chicago, IL, Oct.10, 2009.

1

Another seldom noted approach to the integration of judicial services with social and support functions is the embedment of courtrooms into other institutional facilities such as jails and mental health hospitals.

2

A Few Thoughts about Court Architecture

By Rona G. Rothenberg, FAIA

During the past decade, the Judicial Council of California has developed a comprehensive, well planned effort to upgrade, improve, or replace the State’s failing justice facilities. Beginning with reforms initiated over ten years ago, the employees, functions, and buildings of California’s 250 disparate trial courts in 58 counties have been unified into a single, separate-but-equal branch of California state government. The California Judicial System developed court facility standards for its trial courts and made assessments and inventories of all court facilities within the state in order to develop a prioritized plan to upgrade or replace failing courthouses. This was followed by a $6.5 billion public works program enacted by the California Legislature to build the first 56 new superior courthouses to serve the residents of California.

Modeled on the very best practices of the Federal and state/local governments and the private sector, the California courthouse construction program has now finished the first round of courthouse construction, which is represented by several of the projects presented in this Retrospective. Most notable of these is the Richard E. Arnason Justice Center in Pittsburgh, California.

Our rule of law and courthouses are the cornerstone of our democracy; we as a nation are most fortunate for the efforts of such programs and to have committed judges, clerks, administrators, executives, architects, builders, planners, and others from whose efforts timeless, beautiful, and functional courthouse have emerged to serve justice in our country.

xix

Back to the Future: Renovated, Rehabilitated, Re-Programmed Projects Todd S. Phillips, Ph.D., AIA

The Introduction to the Retrospective noted the “Presence of the Past” in the form of a significant number of projects that began with an existing structure that was renovated, rehabilitated and/or re-programmed to be made fit for service today. The remarks about these projects were chiefly in the context of judicial imagery, and it was suggested that the older buildings tend to encourage a conservative approach to form-making when the time comes for new work. The traditional buildings may feature a style that is so distinguished and well-executed that a radical departure from it with new forms is not desirable. Some historic buildings are so iconic and even lavish by today’s standards that the architects of the new project can feel obliged to stick within the original language of the old as closely as possible.

In other cases where the existing building is not special in some way already, a conservative imagery may still be the outcome of new work if only because the existing structure is so riddled with practical problems to solve internally that design energies and budgets are directed primarily at issues that are not about style.

The technical challenges to overcome are so demanding that straightforwardness and restraint with the forms is the best course after all the upgrading work is done.

Judicial imagery in either case – whether it is with distinguished historic architecture that is re-visited or with merely dull building from an earlier period that is given new life - is not likely to feature eyecatching innovation in these kinds of projects. The large percentage of existing brick and mortar that is rooted stylistically in former times, combined with the inherent seriousness of the judicial enterprise and of the spaces and layouts it requires in general, suggests that a lot courthouse design will always have a markedly conservative cast. No other secular building type is as tied in both concrete and conceptual terms to things that have come before. It is therefore no surprise or failure of imagination necessarily if a freshly re-worked project continues to appear outwardly staid.

Beyond Questions of Imagery: Skill, Inventiveness, Judgment Looking beyond appearances and the question of judicial imagery, however, the examples of renovated or reworked buildings are also noteworthy for the impressive levels of architectural skill, inventiveness and judgment that they reveal. The examples are so impressive, in fact, that they tempt one to conclude that these re-worked projects are the most architecturally accomplished of all. Each one began with extensive pre-design work that included analyses of existing structure, systems, and

xx

site, followed by considerable rigor and ingenuity on a broadly multi-disciplinary basis to determine what new, 21st Century program elements and capabilities could be accommodated, and how.

Two historic buildings mentioned in the Introduction, the Essex County Courthouse and the John Adams Courthouse in Boston, are each more than a century old and required major re-working of spaces and structure.

In Essex County, a huge central atrium and unenclosed stairs had to be modified for smoke and fire protection without compromising the grandeur of the volume. In a significantly larger building in Boston, 50,000 square feet of new interior space was captured with the infill of two exterior light wells. Three original courtrooms were restored, others were refurbished and converted into judicial offices and meeting rooms, upper floors were remodeled for offices, and a new seven-justice courtroom was created.

In both projects, a complete new infrastructure for HVAC and other building systems, as well as telecommunications, security and lighting was installed. The architects for Boston had to weave the new infrastructure through the historic fabric of bearing walls, ceiling voids, and original finishes. In Essex County, the same task was made even more difficult by the structural system of vaulted ceilings with solid masonry that left no room for the insertion of ductwork, conduit, and air handling equipment in most places. The removal of an unnecessary elevator in one instance yielded a vertical chase that was used for major ductwork and conduit.

Two newer projects in Dallas and New York noted in the Introduction represent examples of major modifications of space and structure to re-work dysfunctional midCentury Modernist buildings from the 1960’s. The Dallas project is very large at over 600,000 square feet and consolidates four jurisdictions under one roof.

Its modifications include a new and iconic tower that organizes traffic flow through a single entry point, the insertion of a controlled, three-way circulation system, significant changes to existing court floors that notably include the elimination of two original courtrooms per floor in order to create better public and support space, and the addition of new square footage with more courtrooms. Again, a comprehensively upgraded infrastructure for building systems and court technology is provided.

In New York, the architects were faced with a grim Brutalist building that was seemingly designed without any sensitivity to the amenity of natural light and the

importance of sightlines for safety at the entrance. The building had also become dangerously dysfunctional over time. The new work therefore featured major structural changes to the 10-story building at one corner that required the removal of original columns, temporary steel support at that point, and new structure configured in a way that yielded a much improved entry sequence and lobby. The interiors were reconfigured, and a new exterior curtain wall system was provided for improved thermal performance, daylighting, and general appearance.

Like the older projects in Essex County and Boston, the mid-Century Modernist projects also required extensive analyses of existing conditions and pre-design planning to figure out what program elements could and should be provided. The process in Dallas had the extra complication of a tight schedule that caused programming and design to overlap. In New York, the project schedule was drawn out over several years but never allowed any down time in the court’s operations.

A careful phasing schedule had to be maintained to conduct the work on the building on an area-by-area basis as the demands of the Family Court continued apace.

Neither modernist building required attention to an existing fabric of historic materials, finishes, and artwork like that in the older courthouses so the skills required in Dallas and New York did not include the same specialized, craft-based expertise. On the other hand, the newer buildings required knowledge of contemporary enclosure systems and “whole building” performance issues to an arguably greater extent, as well as the accommodation of more demanding programs.

More Interesting Forms and Ideas?

The above projects and several others like them in the Retrospective are exemplary as technical achievements and as essays in trade-off’s decision-making. In addition, they also reveal the possibilities for genuine richness in terms of interesting architectural forms and ideas. They suggest that, when skillfully handled, some combinations of existing and new building can be more

engaging and affective than many projects that start out with a clean slate. While there is no shortage of judicial brick and mortar that has grown up over time all over America –much of it as woefully jumbled and barnacles-like accretions- the most recent examples here of carefully considered interventions and additions are yielding solid results as architecture. The reworked forms may lack flash, but they have a distinctly satisfying strength of their own.

These projects can also be very stimulating at the level of ideas. Though highly abstract, there is a sense in which a forward-looking synthesis of old and new forms and materials in a courthouse project can reinforce an awareness of justice as the expression of core values that are born in the past and carried forward into the future. The idea of a vibrant continuum across time with old and new brick and mortar is consistent with the transcendent nature of the origins and aspirations of the system.

The Good News Looking Ahead The good news in any case is that the projects featuring various kinds of renovation, rehabilitation, and/or reprogramming work are encouraging for the future.

They confirm that a growing number of architects and planners are equipped to deal with the next wave of design problems that appears to be approaching fast, and that their solutions to those problems can yield very interesting results. As a new Era of Austerity in public resources settles in, and as it becomes more apparent that the re-use of existing buildings is increasingly necessary, the ability to deal with challenges of the kind addressed by these projects is becoming critical.

The last 15 years of emphasis in many quarters on “signature” architecture -some of it with the luxury of ample budgets, open sites, and comparatively simple programs- are giving way to a new phase in which more will have to be accomplished with less. The next 15 years may see a major shift in which existing buildings that are intelligently and artfully re-worked move from the margins to the center of what we regard as the most appropriate approach.

xxi

Federal Courts

CITATION

Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse • Fresno, California The recently completed Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse adds a new landmark to downtown and enhances the cultural environment of the City. A major public garden, large multi-use lobby, cafe, library, and other public amenities including a rooftop viewing terrace, make the courthouse an integral part of community life.

The context of the great Central Valley and the nearby Sierra Nevada Mountains are reflected in the bold sculpting of the mass of the building and the use of a unique system of textured precast concrete panels that give the large exterior walls a warm rustic quality. The variation of concrete surface patterns suggests the rugged nature of the region’s landscape. The faceted nature of the 1,260 individual concrete panels mediates the scale of the massive wall surfaces and heightens the sculptural effect of the entire building form.

The panels also meet critical blastresistance criteria, provide acoustical insulation, and ensure the durability of the building’s envelope.

The new courthouse is large—a result of its program and the two-story height of the typical courthouse floor—and sufficiently imposing by its sheer mass that the design team sought ways to divide, articulate, open up, and lighten the form into numerous parts. The mass is folded in an L-shape of two intersecting volumes with solid shoulders and sloping tops. At the apex, a grand loggia frames a public viewing terrace overlooking the city’s green suburbs, the tree plantations of the Valley, and the snow-capped peaks of the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

The site design of the courthouse embraces the region’s mountain streams, oak-dotted foothills, and sweeping agricultural plains. The L-shape of the building frames a large public garden. Entitled “Once

2

Upon a Time in…,” the garden creates an environment that celebrates the natural history of the San Joaquin Valley and region that the courthouse was built to serve. The movement of water is traced symbolically from its source in the Sierras to a pool that represents the area’s vernal lakes that receive the running snowmelt each spring. Inside the lobby, a sonic well is built into the wall’s surface to focus the sound of the running water making reference to the sources of irrigation that changed the history of the valley. The lobby floor reflects the pattern of nearby orchards. Together, the lobby and courtyard garden present a complete concept using architecture, art, and landscape.

Jury Comment The scale, massing, and overall appearance of the new 14-courtroom Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse make it the most distinctive structure in downtown Fresno, California. The nine-story building is set back on a 3.9 acre site located among some of the existing and new government buildings, including the former federal courthouse which has been converted to a state trial court, and other municipal and state facilities. The entry to the asymmetrical building is

at one corner of its L-shaped footprint and set back from the street by a gentle 1.5 acre garden with native flora and evergreen trees of central California and views of the Sierra Nevada Mountains on the horizon.

The 428,000 square foot building steps up gently in profile. It is the largest building in the downtown yet the highly textural and softly colored pre-cast concrete skin reminiscent of the native culture, and the transparent corridors revealing the courtroom cores, mitigate the impact of the building while contrasting with the starkly modernist buildings of the mid-20th Century civic core.

The secure entry zone and large public lobby constructed of rich materials in wood and stone, and the clear, wellorganized circulation provide a grand public statement. The same feeling of openness and amenity extends to the organization and detailing of the courtrooms, chambers, clerical spaces, and related support areas throughout the building.

The jury was impressed by the skill with which the building was worked out architecturally and the way in which it was designed to relate to its immediate context and the region in general.

3

4

Owner

U.S. General Services Administration Washington, DC

Blast Hinman Consulting Engineers, Inc. San Francisco, California

General Contractor Dick Corp / Matt Construction Fresno, California

Architect of Record Gruen Associates Los Angeles, California

Interior Designer BraytonHughes Design Studio San Francisco, California

Photographer Tim Griffith San Francisco, California

Partner or Joint Venture Moore Ruble Yudell Architects & Planners Santa Monica, California

Art Coordinator Tamara Thomas Fine Arts Services, Inc.

Completion Date: 2005

Landscape Architect Pamela Burton & Company Santa Monica, California

Audio-Visual Menlo Scientific Topanga, California

Civil Engineer Gianetta Engineering Fresno, California

Lighting Designer Frances Krahe & Associates Los Angeles, California

Structural Engineer John A. Martin & Associates Los Angeles, California

Artists Doug Hollis and Anna Valentina Murch San Francisco, California

Mechanical / Plumbing Engineer Tsuchiyama Kaino Sun & Carter Irvine, California

Environmental Graphics Follis Design Altadena, California

Electrical FBA Engineering Newport Beach, California

Acoustical Consultant Schaffer Acoustics, Inc. Pacific Palisades, California

Construction Cost: $107.5 million Number of Courtrooms: 14 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil Building Area: 498,000 BGSF; 269,500 NAA Finance Method: Appropriation Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Designed to LEED but not submitted

5

CITATION

Seattle Federal Courthouse • Seattle, Washington Encompassing a full block on the edge of Seattle’s downtown core, the design for the United States Federal Courthouse reinterprets the building-type into the next generation of urban courthouses.

Federal judges and court administrators were engaged in the programming and design process, actively challenging long-standing courthouse design precepts centered on stature and ceremony, and helping shift design goals toward equity, openness, and transparency.

The resulting building reflects a meticulous attention to craft and beauty that instills a sense of democracy, dignity, and strength.

The building massing strategy involves stacking the courtrooms in a tower, two per floor, minimizing the footprint and allowing for 1,000 percent more open space than local zoning code required.

This massing provided open space on the southwest corner of the site for use as a large plaza with a grove of birch trees and a lily pond.

Courtrooms are shared with each court floor containing three judicial chambers adjacent to two courtrooms. The courthouse is completely equipped with systems for audio/visual presentation, real time court reporting, video conferencing, court microphones, intercoms, and telephone communications. These systems are integrated with significant access to daylight to deliver a more engaging and effective environment.

An image of openness is conveyed while preserving site perimeter security through the use of landscape buffers, courthouse steps, reinforced tree guards, and lowheight bollards designed as seating elements. The impact of security on the expansive public lobby is minimized with a reflecting pool public-art project, an invisible

6

infrared security curtain, and metal detectors located internal to the lobby.

Collaborative and flexible workspaces are provided and sized based on job function rather than status, and nearly everyone is located in open workstations. To support the variety of environments throughout the office areas and to fully encourage creativity, mobile furniture solutions were incorporated to enable staff to control parts of their environment.

The staff has reported an overall high satisfaction with their workspace since moving in. The flexible office space design has already accommodated several office expansions quickly and easily.

Jury Comment The new Seattle Federal Courthouse exemplifies an exceptionally open and transparent approach to courthouse design. The building has transformed an entire block of the downtown core of Seattle and integrated an expression of nature in the design of the public plaza with the urban fabric of the community.

The building’s composition and

the massing of the mid-rise and high-rise volumes of the structure contribute to an understanding of the transparency and functioning of the judicial process.

The mid-rise office bar component is gracefully curved as it is joined to the high-rise tower. The tower is composed of the inner core of the courtrooms with views from the public waiting areas to the plaza below, and dramatic views of the city and the Sound. The judicial chambers are located behind the courtrooms providing total security, while the circulation corridors are highly transparent and are a major contribution to the public spirit of the courts.

The use of natural light throughout the composition, including the main entry lobby on the plaza and the connecting lobby, incorporates a wide range of highly crafted details as well as sustainable design features that contribute both significant operating savings and satisfaction to the users of the building. The jurors were impressed by the quality of the design solution and the extent to which it celebrates democracy, openness, and the strength of the courts system.

7

8

Owner

U.S. General Services Administration Washington, DC Architect of Record NBBJ Seattle, Washington Landscape Architect Peter Walker and Partners Berkeley, California Civil / Structural Engineer Magnusson Klemencic Associates Seattle, Washington Mechanical Engineer CBG Consulting Engineers Portland, Oregon Acoustical Consultant Bruck Richards Chaudiere Seattle, Washington Security Consultant Latta Technical Services Plano, Texas Blast Consultant Hinman Consulting Engineers San Francisco, California General Contractor Jones Construction Company Absher Construction Company Photographer Sean Airhart Seattle, Washington Completion Date: 2004 Construction Cost: $ 171.0 million Number of Courtrooms: 13 U.S. District Court, 5 Bankruptcy Type of Court: Criminal, Civil Building Area: 615,000 BGSF Finance Method: Appropriation Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Designed to LEED but not submitted

9

Spottswood W. Robinson III and Robert R. Merhige, Jr., U.S. Courthouse • Richmond, Virginia The Spottswood W. Robinson III and Robert R. Merhige, Jr., U.S. Courthouse in Richmond bridges the city’s historic commercial core to the west and its governmental Capitol Square district to the east.

The building presents a formal public entrance to Broad Street, along with the neighboring Richmond City Hall, the Virginia State Assembly Building, and the Virginia State Library. A 100-foot high north-facing atrium serves as a civic-scale forecourt to the sevenstory courthouse and office facility to the south. The strong, curved south façade fronting Grace and Eighth Streets presents an iconic face to the Capitol Square district.

The curtain wall of the atrium turns a less formal face toward the commercial district. At night, the illuminated atrium and landscaped areas becomes a dramatic backdrop for the developing performing arts district.

The 325,000 square foot building provides office functions on the lower four floors and courtrooms on the upper three. Public

10

galleries facing the atrium lead visitors to the public functions and to the courtrooms. The judges’ chambers are located along the southern edge of the building where they enjoy dramatic views to Capitol Square, the Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia State Capitol Building, and the Lewis F. Powell Courthouse.

There are various sustainability features for the courthouse. Air systems provide effective delivery and mixes fresh air to support the

comfort of building occupants.

Energy performance of HVAC, hot water, and interior lighting is optimized to be 30 percent above ASHRAE standards. Low E Glass prevents heat from entering through the skin of the building.

The project meets the requirements of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). The public sides of the courtrooms, including the witness stand and jury areas, are ADA compliant and the judicial side is ADA adaptable.

Owner

U.S. General Services Administration Architect of Record Heery International, Inc. Orlando, Florida Design Architect Robert A.M. Stern Architects New York, New York Landscape Architect Robert A.M. Stern Architects New York, New York Civil Engineer Hankins and Anderson Virginia Beach, Virginia Structural / Mechanical Engineer Heery International, Inc. Orlando, Florida Lighting Designer C.M. King + Associates, Inc. Alexandria, Virginia General Contractor Tompkins Builders, Inc. Washington, D.C. Photographer Peter Aaron / Esto Photographics Mamaroneck, New York Completion Date: 2008 Number of Courtrooms: 9 Construction Cost: $82.3 million Type of Court: Criminal Building Area: 336,961 GSF; 209,353 NAA Financing Method: General Obligation Bonds, Government Funding Delivery Method: Single Prime Contract Type of Construction: New LEED Certification: Silver

11

United States Courthouse • Jacksonville, Florida The United States Courthouse is built on a raised public plaza providing access to the new courthouse building and creates a forecourt for the entrance. This plinth elevates the building and acts as a natural security barrier. The mass of the building was pushed to the western edge of the site to give the courthouse a cushion from the elevated train station on the eastern edge. With four courts per floor, a hybrid collegial floor organization was used. A traditional courtrooms-to-chambers adjacency arrangement was provided for the magistrate and bankruptcy courts, while the district and appeals chambers were co-located on separate floors from their courtrooms. This arrangement allowed for an efficient building footprint and a reduced floor-to-floor height.

The exterior design centered on a contemporary representation of the federal judicial system. The exterior materials of limestone precast concrete panels and painted metal work recall the history of the 1930’s courthouse program. Different hues of green glass take advantage of desirable views of downtown while allowing for the extensive use of daylight into office spaces and district courtrooms.

The building stacking follows typical courts planning by locating highvolume agencies lower in the base of the building. Efficiencies result through the use of pooled judges’ chambers utilizing a collegial planning scheme. Courtrooms may be shared between seated judges and other visiting or senior judges.

The building core has been designed with swing-away mechanical rooms surrounding a fixed vertical shaft to allow mechanical rooms to swing out of the core on court floors to allow the introduction of courtroom holding cells. The overall efficiency of the building is at 72 percent far above the federal target of 67 percent.

12

Owner

U.S. General Services Administration Architect of Record Heery International, Inc. Orlando, Florida Partner or Joint Venture KBJ Architect Jacksonville, Florida Landscape Design Architect Jim Urban & Associates Civil Engineer WBQ Engineering Orlando, Florida Structural / Mechanical Engineer Heery International Orlando, Florida Acoustics / Audio Visual Consultant Newcomb & Boyd Atlanta, Georgia General Contractor Skanska USA Building Photographer Heery International Orlando, Florida Completion Date: 2003 Number of Courtrooms: 17 Construction Cost: $85.0 million Type of Court: Criminal, Bankruptcy Building Area: 414,200 GSF; 298,350 NAA Financing Method: Appropriation Delivery Method: Construction Management Type of Construction: New LEED Certification: None

13

United States Courthouse • Rockford, Illinois The new U.S. Courthouse in Rockford, Illinois was conceived in the context of a 100-year commitment by the Federal Government to the City of Rockford. Changing needs and the likelihood of eventual expansion resulted in a structure which has been sited and planned with an eye to the future. Flexibility is stressed at every opportunity in the design.

One of the challenges of this project was to meet the program area requirements while maintaining blast stand-off distances on the site, providing for 30-year expansion needs, and keeping the building below highrise status. The organization of the functional spaces and the shape of the site resulted in a long, narrow building defining the western edge of a newly created park. The architectural language aims to create a stable and dignified image appropriate to the judiciary while creating a sense of accessibility and engagement in the life and physical patterns of the City. The solidity and permanence of the Courts is evoked in the building’s revetment in cast stone. Extensive use of standard curtain wall elements punctuates the simple volume and reveals the internal functional elements of the building. The courthouse’s main point of entry is legible as a tall, open loggia and glazed pavilion knitting the structure into its green setting while welcoming visitors into the building.

Mezzanines are used to resolve potential conflict over which users would have access to the building’s prime river view by the placement of the judicial chambers above the spectator seating in their courtroom below. Both the judges and

14

the public have access to the same monumental view while separation of circulation for security purposes is maintained.

Other unique elements are the Jury Assembly area located

within a glass box visible from the entire Public Atrium and the natural day lighting in all the courtrooms despite having minimal or no exterior exposure for security reasons.

Owner

U.S. General Services Administration Architect of Record PSA-Dewberry Fairfax, Virginia Partner or Joint Venture Koetter Kim & Associates Boston, Massachusetts Landscape Architect SmithGroup, JJR Chicago, Illinois Civil Engineer McClure Engineering Associates Rockford, Illinois Structural / Mechanical Engineer PSA-Dewberry Fairfax, Virginia Blast Protection Consultant Hinman Consulting Engineers San Francisco, California Acoustics and Audio / Visual Consultants Polysonics Corp.

Warrenton, Virginia General Contractor Caddell Construction Montgomery, Alabama Completion Date: 2010 Number of Courtrooms: 5 Construction Cost: $79.8 million Type of Court: Criminal, Civil Building Area: 198,000 GSF; 105,000 NAA Financing Method: General Funds Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certification: Gold

15

CITATION

United States Courthouse • Laredo, Texas The location of the United States Courthouse has a rich and multicultural architectural heritage.

Climate and cultural considerations led to the use of massive masonry, deeply recessed windows, and interior courtyards providing comfort and a sense of tradition.

The new courthouse expresses its heritage in the context of civic architecture. The presiding District Court Judge challenged the design team to reinterpret the existing U.S. Courthouse while sustaining a mood in visitors akin to a civil liturgy.

The design creates a dignified progression from the street to the courtroom. Visitors ascend formal steps to a plinth, a green and formal courtyard, and proceed to the classical rotunda that welcomes them. All public spaces are oriented toward the rotunda and courtyard which conforms to security guidelines, removes individuals from the everyday activities of the street, calms those under stress, and reminds them with architectural cues of their cultural roots and traditions.

This project was one of the first federal courthouses to be designed under General Services Administration’s “Design Excellence” Program. It incorporates security measures without creating a fortress-like image and includes the latest anti-terrorism design techniques and integrates state-of-the-art court technology into the design.

The project was designed prior to the establishment of LEED guidelines; however, many features address the environment, daylighting, and energy and water conservation.

Deeply recessed windows control the infiltration of sunlight into the building. Additionally, each elevation was designed in a different manner to accommodate the solar orientation of the building.

16

The courthouse is 100 percent accessible in all public areas.

Courtrooms and judicial chambers are adaptable. Assisted listening devices and tactile display panels are also provided. As a public building, it was deemed paramount by the design team to exceed the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act to ensure convenient access by all. The design team worked with community input from disabled citizens to fully review all accessibility features. The ramp leading up to the rotunda is integrated into the covered colonnade to provide shade and rain protection for those in wheel chairs or the elderly. A powered door is provided at the rotunda. All clerk areas are equipped with wheel chair counter stations and the courtrooms are fully accessible.

Jury Comment The Jury felt that this culturally rich community of Laredo, located at the southern border of the United States, has been well-served by the design of the new United States Federal Courthouse. The design speaks to the heritage of Laredo and the civic importance of courthouses, as well as

to the parks and public plazas deeply rooted in the Hispanic culture. The project sits comfortably on its site and is a sensitive addition to the adjoining civic area.

The jury was impressed by the straightforwardness of the design. The entry sequence for the visitor is clear and direct. The layout is simple in plan, functional, and well organized. Public space and administrative support areas throughout the Courthouse receive ample daylight. Organization of public circulation within the building permits continuous visual contact with the rotunda and exterior plaza. The architect has successfully created a dignified, state-of-the-art courthouse.

In keeping with the presiding District Court Judge’s challenge, the design is respectful of the original courthouse which this facility replaced. The architectural vocabulary of thick exterior walls and deeply recessed openings reflect the heritage that is uniquely South Texas. The solution provides the community with a new civic landmark appropriate to the federal court system and the judicial process.

17

18

Owner

U.S. General Services Administration Washington, DC Architect of Record HDR Architecture, Inc. Dallas, Texas Civil / Site / Structural / Mechanical Engineer HDR Architecture, Inc. Dallas, Texas Blast Consultant Weidlinger Associates, Inc. New York, New York Cost Estimating Parametrix, Inc. Salt Lake City, Utah General Contractor Mitchell Enterprises, Ltd. Sherman, Texas Photographer Mark Ballogg Chicago, Illinois Completion Date: 2004 Construction Cost: $ 34.6 million Number of Courtrooms: 5 (Expandable to 9) Type of Court: District Court, Bankruptcy Court, Magistrate Court Building Area: 147,956 BGSF; 106,223 NAA Finance Method: Appropriation Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

19

United States District Courthouse • Orlando, Florida The site of the U.S. District Courthouse in Orlando provided an opportunity to connect downtown with an existing neighborhood by filling an underused site with landscaping, a parking garage, and the federal courthouse. The new courthouse provides a landmark presence in the downtown area by linking two sides of the city divided by an elevated highway.

The courthouse is a six-story structure with its entry at the corner of two main streets. An entry tower recalling the City’s original 1941 Federal Building and Post Office marks the corner. Along the City’s historic east-west main street, an atrium of five stories with a screened window wall opens generously to the community and is often used for public events.

The construction of the building minimizes the east/west exposure and the south facing atrium is shielded by an aluminum sunscreen.

The north-facing private spaces, such as the judges’ chambers, have terraces overlooking the public garden.

Four courtrooms on each floor overlook the atrium and through the window wall to the city beyond. Beyond the courtroom zone, the chambers are configured as pavilions around light terraces which bring daylight into the courtrooms. The new courthouse, the existing Federal Building, and associated landscape development form a secure courts campus, reestablish the city block, and create a welcoming and dignified presence for the courts within the city and its surrounding neighborhoods.

The building contains eight District Courtrooms, seven Magistrate Courtrooms, a law library, and departmental space for U.S. Clerk of Courts, Pre-Trial Services, Probation, U.S. Marshal Service,

20

and judges’ chambers. Public attributes include an atrium with seven installations by glass artist

Al Held, private gardens for the Jury Assembly Suite, and garden terraces for the judges.

Owner

U.S. General Services Administration Architect of Record Leers Weinzapfel Associates Architects, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts Heery International, Inc. Orlando, Florida Partner or Joint Venture Heery International, Inc. Orlando, Florida Landscape Architect Raycroft Meyer Landscape Architecture Bristol, Vermont Civil / Structural / Mechanical Engineer Heery International, Inc. Orlando, Florida Lighting Designer Lam Partners Cambridge, Massachusetts Artist Al Held / Al Held Foundation Boiceville, New York Construction Manager Hensel Phelps Construction, Co. Orlando, Florida Photographer Peter Aaron / Esto Photograpics Mamaroneck, New York Completion Date: 2007 Number of Courtrooms: 15 Construction Cost: $83.2 million Type of Court: Criminal Building Area: 378,500 GSF; 319,105 NAA Financing Method: Appropriation Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certification: None

21

United States District Courthouse • Alpine, Texas The U.S. Courthouse in Alpine, Texas conveys the traditions of civic building in the area and the specific mission of the occupants of the courthouse. Compatibility with the surrounding area harmonizes with the powerful Trans-Pecos landscape that dominates this locale. The building sits comfortably between similarly oriented structures to either side, yet has a more powerful presence than its neighbors. The courthouse has the same quality of rising from the flat plain as the hills and mountain ranges around the area.

The courthouse materials are compatible with the larger landscape of the West Texas climate and environment. A long, low security wall provides a base for the building constructed from dry-stacked local West Texas sandstone. The exterior of the building is made of the same russet-colored and textured material.

The overall result is a timeless looking building working in close harmony with its environment.

Sun shading devices are used above most of the windows to

22

the east, south, and west to offer protection and ramadas, traditional sun shelters in this region, are employed. The courtyard, which also has a long history as a climate control device in this region, is employed effectively to create a shady microclimate adjacent to the building’s perimeter. The high-mass exterior skin is used to dampen the comparatively high diurnal temperature swings of this region.

All of the primary departments housed in the Courthouse have a front door facing a covered walkway allowing people to come and go without traveling through another unit. The walkway surrounds the courtyard contributing a sense of intimacy available to all units and their visitors. Court functions are elevated to the second floor. A memorable double-height rotunda connects the two floors and provides a dignified, civic feeling.

Owner

Artesia Development Houston, Texas Architect of Record PageSoutherlandPage Austin, Texas Landscape Architect Rialto Studio, Inc. San Antonio, Texas Civil / Mechanical / Electrical Engineer PageSoutherlandPage Austin, Texas Structural Engineer / Blast Consulting Walter P. Moore & Associates, Inc. Austin, Texas Security Consultant Ingersoll Rand Security & Safety Houston, Texas General Contractor W. G. Yates & Sons San Antonio, Texas Photographer Chris Cooper Photography New York, New York Completion Date: 2007 Number of Courtrooms: 1 Construction Cost: $11.9 million Type of Court: Magistrate Building Area: 38,620 GSF; 28,533 NAA Delivery Method: Design / Build / Lease Back Type of Construction: New LEED Certification: Designed to LEED but not submitted

23

United States Federal Courthouse • Bakersfield, California The 35,500 square foot, single Magistrate Court structure is sited in Bakersfield’s only downtown park creating a modern interpretation of the quintessential one-room courthouse on the village green. It is designed to deliver a high-performance home for the Magistrate Court and is on target to achieve estimated energy conservation 30 percent better than ASHRAE 90.1-2007 code and LEED Gold certification.

The design is a symbolic expression of the Federal Courts communicating the dignity and value of the rule of law by using precedents from the iconic symbols of historic American courthouse traditions. It creates an indooroutdoor relationship celebrating the tectonic traditions of Irving Gill and Rudolph Schindler; icons of the modernist architectural history of California. The design also provides a high performance building that significantly reduces energy and water consumption.

The project’s high level of energy conservation is achieved through place-specific passive strategies including solar orientation, shading, high performance glazing, and enhanced thermal insulation.

24

The project is also the first courthouse to be built under the General Services Administration’s (GSA) new Design Excellence Design/Build competition procurement method that was developed in response to the American Relief and Recovery Act; the program is expected to set new standard for expedited delivery, while complying with the requirements and aspirations of the Design Excellence process.

The principle challenge of the design/build procurement method is to deliver all of the benefits of competitive, guaranteed price while maintaining the high standards of the GSA. The integrated project team design for the Bakersfield Courthouse met this challenge through a highly collaborative, design-build process, engaging architect, engineers, interior designer, landscape architect, lighting designer, subcontractors, and general contractor.

Owner

U.S. General Services Administration Architect of Record NBBJ Seattle, Washington Landscape Architect Mia Lehrer + Associates Los Angeles, California Civil Engineer Psomas Engineering Los Angeles, California Structural Engineer Thornton-Tomasetti, Inc. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Mechanical Engineer Ideas for the Built Environment Sherman Oaks, California Blast Consultant Hinman Consulting San Francisco, California General Contractor Gilbane Construction Company Providence, Rhode Island Photographer Sean Airhart Seattle, Washington

Completion Date: 2012 Number of Courtrooms: 1 Construction Cost: $15.9 million Type of Court: Magistrate Building Area: 35,700 GSF; 24,000 NAA Financing Method: Appropriation Delivery Method: Design / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certification: Gold

25

United States Federal Courthouse • Davenport, Iowa The mission of this project was to restore, renovate, and convert a treasured National Register multi-tenant Federal Building and Courthouse into an expanded court facility. Continued criminal caseload growth, poor inmate transportation/security, insufficient space to expand court operations, and an aging infrastructure rendered the historical building inadequate.

The program included upgrading/ restoring the historic courtroom, adding two new courtrooms and support space, three new judges’ chambers, expanding court related offices, new prisoner holding facilities, and new secure judges’ parking.

The design removes previous renovations, exposes and restores significant original interior features, and introduces a textured glass wall paralleling the original public lobby where two new

26

courtrooms and support space are inserted. The courthouse renovation preserves/restores key historic interior features; provides a high level of functionality; responds to separation of public, restricted, and secure circulation; and gives contemporary interior treatment to spaces identified for restoration.

Space designed to serve more than one programmatic function reduced space requirements and construction cost while creating greater design opportunities; for example, the grand jury function is included in the new district courtroom. All courtrooms have movable bollards and rope spectator rails, creating flexibility in the size of well areas. The jury assembly area does not have walls separating it from the public lobby creating a large dramatic gathering space with a north exposure for civic events and gallery exhibits.

The renovation offers innovative solutions that can serve as a model for modernizing historic buildings by restoring and preserving significant historic interior features while balancing the opportunity to create new interior spaces expressive of purpose and of modernization. The design restores original historic architecture and provides the highest level of functionality and innovation.

It also creates symbolically expressive contemporary interior architecture for a facility that reflects the dignity, stability, and importance of the Judicial System.

As the deco style demonstrated a new approach to federal buildings in the 1930s and 1940s, the new interior space of the Davenport Federal Courthouse renovation reflects the materials, technologies, and details of the 2000s providing a wonderful synthesis of old and new.

Owner

U.S. General Services Administration Architect of Record Downing Architects, P.C. Bettendorf, Iowa Design Architect The Leonard Parker Associates / Durrant Group Minneapolis, Minnesota and Hartland, Wisconsin Civil Engineer Missan, Stanley & Associates Urbandale, Iowa Structural / Mechanical / Electrical Engineer The Durrant Group Dubuque, Iowa Sustainability Consultant The Weidt Group Minneapolis, Minnesota General Contractor Estes Company Davenport, Iowa Photographer Don Wong Photo, Inc. Bloomington, Minnesota Completion Date: 2006 Number of Courtrooms: 3 Construction Cost: $14.5 million Type of Court: Criminal Building Area: New - 2,230 GSF; 1,864 NAA, Renovation - 77,623 GSF; 51,048 NAA Financing Method: Federal Funding Delivery Method: Single Prime Contract Type of Construction: Addition, Renovation, Restoration LEED Certification: Design to LEED but not submitted

27

Warren E. Burger Federal Building and United States Courthouse • St Paul, Minnesota

The mission of this project was to renovate, reconfigure, and transform a 1964 multi-tenant modernist federal building into a dedicated United States Courthouse. Program goals included consolidating and improving court functions, upgrading nine existing courtrooms, adding four new courtrooms, reorganizing the location of the Courts and support offices to improve efficiency, upgrading security to current required levels, and establishing a sense of dignity commensurate with the stature of the federal judiciary while honoring the integrity of the building’s design philosophy and expression.

Additionally, environmental and energy management systems were to be redesigned and upgraded to meet LEED Silver criteria.

The design reinforces the building’s civic identity by opening up and formalizing the plaza to give greater prominence to its rich marble exterior and the modular rigor of the building. The integrity of the shell has been retained; modifying only the entry to provide greater transparency and redeveloping the lobby as a continuous space linking the clerk’s office, jury assembly, and a new special proceedings courtroom.

28

The dignified, lean, and crisply detailed existing courtroom wall paneling was restored and new courtroom millwork elements, lighting, technology, and security components were seamlessly incorporated. The new courtrooms honor and reflect the precedent of the original courtrooms in all respects.

Both upgraded existing and new courtrooms are designed around an innovative evidence presentation concept that positions the witness directly across the well from the jury. Evidence is projected to a 9’-0” by 11’-0” screen that all courtroom participants are able to see allowing

the jury to observe the witness at the moment evidence is presented.

The original building provided no sally port or prisoner elevator; prisoners arrived in a general use garage and moved to the courtrooms via a freight elevator causing a comingling of judges, jurors, and prisoners in a single circulation system. The redesign responds to the required separation of public, restricted, and secure circulation through the addition of two new prisoner elevators linking a new secure sally port to the U.S. Marshals’ floor and courtroom holding areas.

Owner

U.S. General Services Administration Architect of Record TENG & Associates, Inc. Chicago, Illinois Courts Design Architect Ray Greco Architects Minneapolis, Minnesota Landscape Architect TENG & Associates, Inc. Chicago, Illinois Civil / Structural Engineer TENG & Associates, Inc. Chicago, Illinois Mechanical Engineer Michaud Cooley Erickson Minneapolis, Minnesota Acoustical Consultant Kvernstoen, Ronnholm & Associates Minneapolis, Minnesota General Contractor Ryan Companies U.S., Inc. Cedar Rapids, Iowa Photographer Don Wong Photo, Inc. Bloomington, Minnesota Completion Date: 2008 Number of Courtrooms: 16 Construction Cost: $71.9 million Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Bankruptcy, Appellate Building Area: New - 648 GSF, Renovation - 451,491 GSF Financing Method: GSA perspectus project Delivery Method: CM at Risk Type of Construction: New, Renovation LEED Certification: Silver

29

Warren E. Burger United States Federal Courthouse — Interim Courthouse • St. Paul, Minnesota This Interim Courthouse project renovated commercial office space located near the existing Federal Courthouse to accommodate the District Court for a period of three years while the Courthouse was remodeled. An analysis for the project determined that relocation to an interim space would result in a savings of $15 to $17 million reducing the construction period by two years if the temporary arrangement could provide a secure courts environment on a restricted budget.

This unusual project required that the team design and construct an appropriately secure and dignified court setting in less than 120 days. The 65,000 square foot program including five courtrooms, eight judges’ chambers, the U.S. Court Clerk’s office, and other court supporting functions and facilities, was based on the court’s dramatically modified space requirements. All court cases involving prisoners were relocated to the Minneapolis courthouse. Despite constraints of the rental space, judges were provided with secure circulation and the courtrooms were designed within an existing and constricted column grid, capitalized on the proximity of jury, judge, and witnesses. While the space was less than ideal, the design served the courts comfortably well for three years while new courts were built.

Utilization of translucent glass brought natural light into the courtrooms from public corridors along the window wall creating amenity and conveying the democratic principle of open, public access to the federal court system.

The judge’s bench, jury box, witness stand, clerk’s station, and attorney tables are all formed with plate steel providing bullet resistance, structure, finish, and rapid fabrication. The

30

materials palette consisted of these two signature materials: the translucent blue glass and the steel plate. This unified pragmatic design maintained the dignity and stature of the federal judiciary while meeting standards of cost effectiveness and construction speed.

The project’s success lies in providing a functional, secure, and dignified court environment within rental office space on a constricted construction budget and schedule, and also serves as a model for other interim courts relocation projects.

Owner

Frauenshuh Companies St. Paul, Minnesota

Lighting Design Schuler Shook Minneapolis, Minnesota

Architect of Record Mohagen Hansen St. Paul, Minnesota

General Contractor Kraus Anderson Construction Co. Minneapolis, Minnesota

Design Architect Julie Snow Architects, Inc. Minneapolis, Minnesota

Photographer Don Wong Photo, Inc. Bloomington, Minnesota Julie Snow Architects Minneapolis, Minnesota

Courts Architect Ray Greco Architects Minneapolis, Minnesota

Completion Date: 2005 Number of Courtrooms: 5 Construction Cost: $3.3 million Type of Court: Criminal, Civil Building Area: 69,730 GSF Financing Method: Appropriation Delivery Method: Leased Design Build Type of Construction: Renovation LEED Certification: None

Mechanical Engineer Jack Snow PE Minneapolis, Minnesota

31

Appellate Courts

Connecticut Appellate Courthouse • Hartford, Connecticut Built in 1913 as an insurance company headquarters, the original neoclassical building had an imposing center hall flanked on each side by a row of monumental columns and overlooked by balconies and offices.

The adaptive re-use of this building as the Connecticut Appellate Courthouse re-establishes the landmark building’s dignified presence while expanding its role.

Inspired by traditions significant to the evolution of the appellate court such as the General Court in Williamsburg, Virginia, the formal focus of the main courtroom is on the attorneys’ presentation podium within the dramatic colonnaded hall.

On the second story, judges’ chambers, clerks’ space, and conference rooms frame the two-story main space that forms the focus of the Appellate Court’s activities. This organization emphasizes the nature of appellate proceedings with its emphasis on oral arguments and questioning of attorneys by the judges sitting as a group en banc.

As the original room did not have any penetrations in the ceiling, the design keeps the ceiling smooth and uninterrupted. HVAC registers are in the floor, and lighting is from HID sources that bounce light off the ceiling. The drapes were selected for their ability to absorb sound waves since the introduction of the mezzanine glass walls would otherwise be too acoustically reflective in the space.

Architectural elements throughout the 48,750 square foot building, such as the rich Corinthian columns and the uncovered historic window behind the judges’ bench, resonate with the updated new structural and decorative elements, establishing an architectural connection between traditional and modern forms that reinforces the court’s dynamic relationship to both precedent and innovation.

34

Owner

Department of Public Works Hartford, Connecticut

Mechanical Engineer BVH Integrated Services Bloomfield, Connecticut

Architect of Record RicciGreene Associates New York, New York

Historic Preservation Building Conservation Associates, Inc. New York, New York

Landscape Architect Mathews Nielsen New York, New York

General Contractor Nutmeg Companies, Inc. Norwich, Connecticut

Civil Engineer Purcell Associates Glastonbury, Connecticut

Photographer Woodruff Brown Architectural Photography Simsbury, Connecticut

Completion Date: 2005 Construction Cost: $5.5 Million Type of Court: Appellate Building Area: 48,750 GSF Finance Method: General Obligation Bond Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build, Single Prime Contract Type of Construction: Renovation LEED Certificate: None

35

DC Court of Appeals • Washington, DC The renovation and expansion of the Historic DC Courthouse has restored an unused National Historic Landmark to its previous

grandeur. Originally designed by George Hadfield in 1820 to serve as the District’s first City Hall, it is now the new home for the District

of Columbia’s Court of Appeals.

Vacant since 1998, it was in need of a comprehensive overhaul as well as an expansion to provide much-needed additional space for the courts.

A new plaza and entrance pavilion on the north side of the building reorients the courthouse to Judiciary Square to engage with the surrounding ensemble of civic buildings. While unmistakably modern, the entrance pavilion is a contemporary interpretation of the original north side portico and shares the proportions and character of the historic structure.

The transparent design preserves views of the historic building, while welcoming visitors and accommodating the highest standards of security without compromising the landmark structure.

The DC Court of Appeals has 48,000 square feet of new space – including a ceremonial courtroom, pre-function space, and attorney workrooms – located below-grade to minimize impact on the original building.

Mechanical modernizations were carefully designed and invisibly installed without disrupting the historic fabric of the interiors and the entire building is now ADAcompliant.

The restored courthouse has also revitalized the surrounding historic green space known as Judiciary Square. Located between the White House and the U.S. Capitol, it is one of the original open spaces identified for public use by Pierre L’Enfant and second in importance only to the National Mall. After years of disrepair, the square has been re-greened through the return of architectural and sculptural elements and new landscaping.

36

Owner

District of Columbia Courts Washington, DC Architect of Record Beyer Blinder Belle Architects & Planners, LLP Washington, DC Landscape Architect Rhodeside & Harwell, Incorporated Alexandria, Virginia Civil Engineer Jacobs Arlington, Virginia Structural Engineer Robert Silman Associates, PLLC Washington, DC Mechanical Engineer Joseph R. Loring & Associates, Inc. Washington, DC Historic Research Robinson & Associates Washington, DC Fire Protection and Life Safety Applied Fire Protection Engineering, Inc. Beltsville, Maryland General Contractor Hensel Phelps Construction Co. Chantilly, Virginia Photographer Identification Joseph Romeo Photography Lorton, Virginia Completion Date: 2009 Construction Cost: $113.4 million Type of Court: Appellate Building Area: 176,231 BGSF; 59,683 NAA Finance Method: Appropriation Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: New, Addition, Restoration, Renovation LEED Certificate: Designed to LEED but not submitted

37

Harris County 1910 Courthouse • Houston, Texas Listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the Harris County 1910 Courthouse is the cornerstone of Houston’s downtown judicial corridor which has undergone a major transformation over the past decade. The six-story Palladian-style domed building originally housed all County Courts and departments but most recently housed Civil Courts and related offices. The Civil Courts were relocated to the corridor’s new 17-story Harris County Civil Courthouse and master planning determined the best use for the restored building would be to house the First and Fourteenth Texas State Court of Appeals.

The current efforts seek to restore the building’s historic integrity, increase functionality, and introduce modern technology, sustainability, accessibility, fire safety, and security features reversing the extensive alterations from a 1950 renovation.

The previous renovation removed massive monumental granite steps leading to the original second level entrances and floored in the six-story rotunda at the fourth, fifth, and sixth levels. Other changes made at that time included removal of Art glass in the dome, covering a 600 square foot prism glass block insert in the second story floor, conversion of the two ornate two-story courtrooms to onestory, and removal of the mezzanine viewing galleries. Windows, millwork, furnishings, and flooring were replaced with historically incorrect materials.

The original building had three courtrooms including one for the Commissioner’s Court. The latter is being historically restored and will be used for other purposes. The two main ceremonial courtrooms on the third floor are being restored to their original grandeur and are the largest and most ornate courtrooms in the county. The restored mezzanine viewing gallery in the largest courtroom will be sloped and open while the viewing gallery in the other is flat and glass-enclosed

38

as originally designed. The courtroom can be viewed from this gallery but the space was and will be used for other purposes as well. Railings, flooring, public and judicial benches, and all ornamentation will be exactly replicated in design, material, and finish.

When the project is completed in 2011, the judiciary of the First and Fourteenth Texas State Court of Appeals will preside from stately wood

benches nearly identical to those used in 1910. The views from the bench will include replicated maple wood floors, restored mezzanine viewing galleries and 13’-0” perimeter windows with historically accurate millwork.

While Harris County chose not to seek LEED certification for the courthouse, a great many LEED criteria are being met in the effort to make the building highly energy-efficient and sustainable.

Owner

Harris County Houston, Texas Architect of Record PGAL Houston, Texas Landscape Architect Wong & Associates, Inc. Houston, Texas Civil Engineer PGAL Houston, Texas Structural Engineer Walter P. Moore & Associates Houston, Texas Mechanical Engineer Jacobs Engineering Group Houston, Texas General Contractor Vaughn Construction Houston, Texas Photographer PGAL Houston, Texas Completion Date: 2012 Construction Cost: $51.0 Million Type of Court: Appellate Building Area: 140,000 GSF; 100,000 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds and Grant, Texas Historical Commission Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: Historical Restoration, Renovation LEED Certificate: None

39

CITATION

John Adams Courthouse • Boston, Massachusetts This restoration project reinstated the former Suffolk County Courthouse as a great civic monument and readapted a 100 year old building for contemporary judicial needs. Listed on the State and National Historic Registers, the building had functioned for over a century housing various Appellate and Trial Courts without significant renovation or upgrade.

The comprehensive restoration preserved the building’s historic façade, including its two main entries, and returned the building’s outstanding architectural features to their original grandeur.

adapted into judicial offices and meeting rooms. The top two floors were remodeled to create offices, meeting rooms, book collection rooms, and technologically-equipped reading areas to serve the patrons and house the extensive collections of the law library.

Located in the heart of downtown Boston, this historic treasure serves as the centerpiece of the State’s judicial system housing the 200 year old Social Law Library and the State’s appellate courts including the Supreme Judicial Court operating under the oldest, still-functioning written constitution in the world.

Jury Comment

In order to meet the programmatic needs of the three client groups, the architects enclosed two large exterior light wells yielding an additional 50,000 gross square feet of interior space. This infill approach afforded the largest area within the building to create the new Seven-Justice Courtroom designed in a style combining modern and classical elements, and features beautifully grained Makore wood finishes and a large, custom-designed stained glass skylight.

As the central organizing element of the building, the Great Hall’s restoration is the project’s visual highlight. The Great Hall’s most notable features were cleaned and restored including coffered vaults, marble statues by renowned sculptor Domingo Mora, balustrades and stairways, and the decorative ceiling.

Three of the building’s wood-paneled courtrooms were restored and other courtrooms were refurbished and

40

The project included updated HVAC, information technology, electrical, security and fire protection systems, new contemporary and refurbished historic lighting, as well as new stairways, elevators, and accessible features.

In 2005, a massive restoration and renovation project was undertaken to bring the former Suffolk County Courthouse of 1894 into the 21st century. The renovated building, renamed for John Adams, houses the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the Appeals Court, the Social Law Library, and the Administrative Office of the Probate and Family Court.

The skillful re-working of the original interior large light wells

created areas for new support spaces as well as a new Seven-Justice Courtroom for the Supreme Judicial Court. The jury noted that several areas of former double height spaces were modified with new floor levels inserted to maximize office space for the court and judicial staff. Original finishes and details were preserved where appropriate to enhance the historic nature of the building. The preservation of the building’s façade and the painstaking restoration of the original detail are commendable.

The jury was impressed by the restoration of the central Great Hall to its original appearance and grandeur. This soaring space has become the hub of new activities that foster education about the role of justice in society. The jury noted that the Great Hall is used frequently for various functions including theater performances, receptions, swearing in ceremonies, and memorial services.

The beautiful restoration of this neoclassical building and its adaptation for the contemporary needs of the judiciary renders this project deserving of special recognition.

41

Owner

Division of Capital Asset Management Boston, Massachusetts Architect of Record CBT Architects Boston, Massachusetts Exterior Envelope Consultant Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Waltham, Massachusetts Civil Engineer Bryant Associates, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts Structural Engineer Weidlinger Associates, Inc. Cambridge, Massachusetts Mechanical Engineer SAR Engineering, Inc. Quincy, Massachusetts Preservation Consultant Preservation Technology Associates, Inc. Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts Acoustics and AV Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Inc. Sudbury, Massachusetts

42

Lighting Consultant Schweppe Lighting Design, Inc. Concord, Massachusetts Lighting Consultant Berg Howland Associates Cambridge, Massachusetts Art Consultant Philip Klausmeyer Holden, Massachusetts Materials Consultant Building Conservation Associates Dedham, Massachusetts

General Contractors Suffolk Construction / NER Construction Management Boston, Massachusetts Photographer Jonathan Hillyer Decatur, Georgia Completion Date: 2005 Construction Cost: $ 118.0 million Number of Courtrooms: 4

Type of Court: Appellate Building Area: New - 50,372 BGSF, Renovated - 293,913 BGSF, Total - 344,825 BGSF; 212,495 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Design Bid Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

43

New York State Court of Appeals • Albany, New York Court of Appeals Hall was originally constructed in the years of 1832 - 1842. In 1917, the building underwent modifications to accommodate the Court of Appeals along with an addition to house the 1884 courtroom designed by H.H. Richardson. The building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is noted as one of the nation’s finest surviving examples of 19th Century Greek Revival style government buildings.

A major objective of the project was to reorganize the circulation and distribution of all court departments with emphasis on locating the seven judges’ chambers in a judicial suite on the second floor arranged

44

around the Judges’ Library and Conference Room.

The new design added 22,000 square feet in two intricately designed additions reflecting the majestic style of the original building crafted to fit onto the tight site. The white marble exterior façade and bronze windows of the additions match the materials of the 1958 renovations with subtle variations to differentiate the new work. The interior design and finishes complement the historic style of the building. Six new, fully dimmable chandeliers, similar in design to the 1884 original, illuminate the Richardson Courtroom. The new chandeliers

raise the overall ambient light level revealing the detail of the historic carved woodwork and the portraits that surround the room.

The new lighting also provides direct light to the bench and table surfaces.

Transparent security measures include modifications to the building layout, access control, improved screening, video surveillance, and ballistic protection without altering the historic appearance of the building. The project includes a complete replacement of the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, data, and security systems to provide a state-of-the-art building infrastructure.

Owner

State of New York Albany, New York Architect of Record DeWolff Partnership Architects, LLP Rochester, New York Landscape Architect Kotz and Associates Syracuse, New York Civil Engineer Clark Engineering & Surveying, P.C. New Lebanon, New York Structural Engineer Ysrael A. Seinuk, P.C. New York, New York Mechanical Engineer M/E Engineering, P.C. Rochester, New York Historic Preservation Consultant Preservation Architecture Albany, New York General Contractor BBL Construction Services Albany, New York Photographer BBL Construction Services Albany, New York DeWolff Partnership Architects, LLP Rochester, New York Completion Date: 2004 Construction Cost: $29.37 Million Type of Court: Appellate Building Area: 89,191 GSF; 66,725 NAA Finance Method: Appropriation Delivery Method: Multiple Prime Contract, Construction Management Type of Construction: Addition, Renovation LEED Certificate: None

45

Ohio Judicial Center • Columbus, Ohio The Ohio Judicial Center project transformed a historic former state office building into the new home of the state’s Supreme Court and the Ohio Judiciary. The project consolidated offices housed at several locations and, for the first time, gave the Court its own building and image.

center corridor to an outside wall created day-lit circulation and provided sufficient floor area for seven suites with river views.

The 1933 Moderne style building is located one block from the historic capitol in the center of the city’s civic center riverfront.

Recapturing faded historic integrity, while fulfilling modern space and functional needs, proved to be a primary design challenge. Challenges included life safety requirements; access for people with disabilities; incorporating modern HVAC and lighting systems; concealing stateof-the-art communications, security, and other electronic systems; and the introduction of courtrooms, elevators, stairs, security checkpoints, and Justices’ suites.

The project continues the integration of art and architecture that characterized the original Depression-era design with a comprehensive restoration of the extraordinary artwork in the building. Contemporary artists also were commissioned to create several modern pieces of art that helped the

At the start of the project, preservation zones were established within the building—high-level restoration was specified for monumental and public spaces, while lower levels were specified for more utilitarian areas. Lighting, finishes, and furnishings were either restored or reproduced in high-level zones; terrazzo was restored and/or replicated, damask wall fabric was recreated from original remnants, and furnishings original to the building were refurbished.

The primary courtroom was created in what had been a first-floor hearing room. It incorporates a new bench, lectern, bar, attorneys’ tables, gallery seating, and contemporary court infrastructure. Oral arguments are broadcasted via live cable TV and Internet streaming.

The Justices’ suites are located on the ninth floor. Relocating the

46

At the top of the building, the lobby, gallery, and reading room of the former State Library were restored for the Law Library.

building make the transition from a generic office building to modern Supreme Court.

Owner

Supreme Court of Ohio Columbus, Ohio

Historian William Seale Washington, DC

Architect of Record Schooley Caldwell Associates Columbus, Ohio

Hazardous Materials Gandee & Associates Dublin, Ohio

Associate Architect Moody-Nolan, Inc. Columbus, Ohio

Art Conservation McKay Lodge Fine Arts Conservation Laboratory, Inc. Oberlin, Ohio

Structural Engineer Kabil Associates Columbus, Ohio Mechanical and Electrical Engineer Schooley Caldwell Associates Columbus, Ohio Lighting Design Garry Steffy Lighting Design, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan

General Contractor / Construction Manager Messer Construction Company Columbus, Ohio

Completion Date: 2004 Construction Cost: $83.0 million Type of Court: Appellate Building Area: 415,000 GSF; 298,800 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bond Delivery Method: Construction Management Type of Construction: Renovation, Historical Restoration, and Adaptive Reuse LEED Certificate: None

Photographer Feinknopf Photography

Acoustics and Audio / Visual Jaffe Holden Acoustics, Inc. Norwalk, Connecticut Security Design Kroll, Schiff and Associates Bastrop, Texas Historic Preservation Benjamin D. Rickey & Company Columbus, Ohio

47

Old Post Office / Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District • St. Louis, Missouri Built in 1872-1884 and designed

by Alfred Mullett, an architect of the Old Executive Office Building in Washington DC, the Old Post Office was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1968 and gained National Monument status in 2004.

The project rehabilitated the original architectural integrity obscured by modifications over the last 120 years, upgraded the building systems to 21st Century standards, and provided interior improvements to accommodate 11 new tenants; the largest being the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District.

Though the Missouri Court of Appeals and Webster University were identified as major tenants early on, large portions remained unassigned. This situation required creating a secure perimeter to the courts while providing flexibility for several different tenant scenarios.

The greatest challenge in the restoration and adaptive reuse of this historic landmark was to adequately address the restoration of historic elements while planning a state-of-the-art courts facility and integrating judges’ chamber security and secure paths as well as mechanical, electrical, and life safety systems into the building.

The unique historic character of the building had to be balanced against the specialized requirements for security, work flow, and efficiency of a modern court.

Creativity was required in establishing a court en banc in a space not intended for 14 judges.

Critical secure paths presented a further challenge and were addressed by utilizing an existing interior stage and incorporating protective glass systems in spaces to provide security yet openness.

The hallmark of the judges’ private offices is the original marble fireplaces

48

and 18 foot high ceilings. A central atrium runs through the center of the building from the roof, down to the basement level, and provides daylight to deep interior spaces of the Court offices and corridors.

Historic public structures were built on elevated bases to project

authority and strength. Our renovation leaves the main south entry untouched to respect history, but adds a new access ramp for disabled individuals to the west entry. The new west entry is also the main entry for all people coming to the building from the newly-built adjacent garage.

Owner

St. Louis U.S. Custom House & Post Office Building Associates, L.P. St.Louis, Missouri Architect of Record Trivers Associates St. Louis, Missouri Landscape Architect Spaid Associates St. Louis, Missouri Civil Engineer Kowelman Engineering St. Louis, Missouri Structural / Mechanical Engineer EDM, Incorporated St. Louis, Missouri Lighting Design Randy Burkett Lighting Design, Inc. St. Louis, Missouri Courts Consultant HOK St. Louis, Missouri General Contractor BSI Constructors St. Louis, Missouri Photographer Fentress Photography St. Louis, Missouri Bob Shimer, Hedrich Blessing Chicago, Illinois Completion Date: 2006 Construction Cost: $22.89 million (Total Project); $ 5.14 million (Court of Appeals) Type of Court: Appellate Building Area: Court of Appeals - 72,324 GSF; 40,207 NAA, Total Project - 242,377 GSF Finance Method: General Funds, Private Financing Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build, Single Prime Contract Type of Construction: Renovation LEED Certificate: None

49

Pennsylvania Judicial Center • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania The Legislature agreed to build the Pennsylvania Judiciary on the last remaining parcel in the Capitol Complex after 300 years of being scattered between the downtown Harrisburg Capitol Complex and surrounding suburban sites.

Program and site studies led the design team to a tri-partite design concept with a five-story Courts Wing, five-story Central Atrium, and nine-story Office Tower.

The building exterior is clad with Indiana limestone to match other buildings in the Complex, and granite is used as an accent at the building base. A public plaza on the west is a forecourt for the public entrance; a small plaza on the south is accessible from the first floor dining room, providing

50

outdoor dining; and a third plaza on the north ties the Center and an adjacent building sharing this urban site. Large windows on all façades bring light and city views to the structure’s occupants. The granite exterior continues into the interior to create a smooth transition and is complemented with natural and earth-toned finishes throughout the building.

Stainless steel and red brass exterior and interior accents provide sparkle to the unified material and color palette.

Approached from a public plaza, the Courts Wing is oriented toward the Capitol and contains the main entrance, shared conference center, judges’ chambers, administrative and information

technology offices, as well as the Panel, Multi-Purpose, and En Banc Courtrooms. The atrium’s recessed secondary entrances on the north and south façades mirror the entrances of adjacent buildings while a skylight roof brings daylight deep into the building. The office tower houses the Supreme Court, Superior Court, the Prothonotary Middle District Office, and the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts, along with their sub-departments.

A full basement housing support spaces and secure parking for 127 vehicles is underneath the building. Underground tunnels to the adjacent Health & Welfare, Finance, and Keystone Buildings are maintained while limiting access for security reasons.

Owner

Pennsylvania Department of General Services Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Architect of Record VITETTA Wormleysburg, Pennsylvania Landscape Architect Pennoni Associates, Inc. Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania Civil Engineer Pennoni Associates, Inc. Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania Structural / Mechanical Engineer VITETTA Wormleysburg, Pennsylvania Polysonics Corporation Washington, DC Construction Manager Heery International, Inc. Berwyn, Pennsylvania General Contractor Mascaro Construction Company, LLP Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Photographer VITETTA Wormleysburg, Pennsylvania Completion Date: 2009 Construction Cost: $112.0 million Type of Court: Appellate Building Area: 424,500 GSF; 379,300 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bond Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build, Multiple Prime Contract Type of Construction: New Construction LEED Certificate: Designed to LEED but not submitted

51

Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Complex • Denver, Colorado

The State of Colorado’s new judicial building, the Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Complex, houses the Judiciary, the third branch of Colorado’s State government, co-equal with the Executive and Legislative branches while visually unifying the architecture of the three branches. The State’s Judicial Department had formerly been in a building that was indistinguishable as a judicial or civic building.

The design imperative was to create a Judicial Complex that is unmistakably a courthouse and a place that celebrates the role of the Judiciary in our democracy.

One of the project goals was to respect and enhance the character of Civic Center Park which sits at the heart of Denver’s Civic Center and includes the Denver City and County Building. The new Judicial Complex is clad in granite complimenting the Capitol and other nearby civic buildings, and consistency with surrounding architecture is shown through the fenestration and wall detailing.

Stately columns and an entry portico mark the entry to the Complex, sitting prominently on a large new civic plaza along the city’s main thoroughfare. The plaza and its landscaping harmonize with

52

adjacent green space. A four-story atrium organizes the interior space of the Courthouse and affords a dramatic view of the Capitol. This atrium glows at night and creates an iconic beacon.

Divided into two primary components, the building comprises a five-story courthouse and a twelvestory office building connected by a three-story link. The Complex features three courtrooms - two for the Court of Appeals and one for the Supreme Court. The office building contains the Attorney General, State Court Administrator, Colorado Public Defender, and other law-related offices.

The Judicial Complex also features a Learning Center making the judiciary more accessible to the public. Exhibits feature images, videos, and histories that enable visitors to better understand important rulings and constitutional issues that touch our everyday lives. Visitors will learn about the structure of the Court, the roles and functions of the various participants in a trial, and specific issues such as due process. Webcasts of a popular mock trial program, such as “Teen Court,” where teens play out a potential trial with their peers, are also made available through the Learning Center.

Owner

State of Colorado Denver, Colorado Architect of Record Fentress Architects Denver, Colorado Landscape Architect Civitas, Inc. Civil / Structural Engineer Martin / Martin Mechanical Engineer M-E Engineers, Inc. Programming Consultant SFDC Accoustical / Security / AV Consultant Shen Milsom Wilke General Contractor Mortensen Construction Photographer Jason A. Knowles, Fentress Architects Completion Date: 2013 Construction Cost: $184.0 million (Total Project); $69.0 million (Court of Appeals) Type of Court: Appellate Building Area: Total - 699,882 GSF; 583, 568 NAA, Courthouse - 204,190 GSF; 189,684 NAA Finance Method: Certificates of Participation Delivery Method: CM / GC Type of Construction: New Construction LEED Certificate: Gold

53

General Jurisdiction Courts

CITATION

Brooklyn Supreme and Family Courthouse • Brooklyn, New York Rising 473 feet and consisting of 32 stories, the Brooklyn Supreme and Family Courthouse is located on a corner site in downtown Brooklyn, NY. The 1.1 million square feet building consolidates the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County Family Court, and over a dozen city agencies. Designed within a predetermined zoning envelope, the building accommodates 50 Supreme Courts including two ceremonial courtrooms, 24 Family Courts, 10 Family Court hearing rooms, a 750-person jury assembly room, and a 300-person detention facility. The collegial judges’ chambers are located at upper levels of the tower and include additional security provisions.

In addition, the developer built approximately 180,000 square feet as speculative office space.

The on-site detention facility was sized to minimize the number of trips required to the facility, and a change in the direction of traffic on one side of the property maximized traffic flow. Belowgrade issues included an active subway tunnel and a high water table which limited below-grade construction.

Commissioned as a public/private partnership, these combined functions presented many challenges to the design team.

The planning of the building needed a simple and intuitive circulation system dedicated and separate from the other, while accommodating the complexities of the program and existing building configuration. From the developer’s perspective, the design team needed to deliver a Class A office building while satisfying the functional, security, and symbolic needs of such a highly visible urban courthouse.

Jury Comment

The tight urban lot limited both vehicular and pedestrian access to the site. The design of the building took into account numerous community concerns regarding quality of life and security issues. In response, the design incorporated large public lobbies to allow internal queuing of the public.

A below-grade sally port and vehicular queuing accommodates the prisoner transport vehicles.

56

The exterior design is architecturally consistent with its surrounding office developments, utilizing precast brick panels as the primary façade material.

The elevations bring order to the building which programmatically is comprised of many different floor-to-floor heights while conveying the presence and dignity of a major courthouse in a dense urban area.

The 84 courtroom, 1.1 million square foot Brooklyn Supreme and Family Courthouse is distinguished as one of the largest court and civic buildings in the United States. It is a programmatically and physically complicated structure that houses a remarkable array of functions that were formerly located in several over-crowded and outdated facilities throughout the Brooklyn area.

The Brooklyn Supreme and Family Courthouse was envisioned and realized as a true public-private partnership between the City of New York and developer Forest City Ratner Companies. The building also has over 150,000 square feet of speculative office space on its top floors and served as a model for other developments of similar type and scale including public agencies, courts, and commercial enterprises.

The clear building organization provides safe and efficient

movement for over 6,000 visitors per day from the lobbies at grade level to the floors occupied by the 50 Supreme and 34 Family courtrooms, allied agencies, and leasable office space. Using materials and forms in the language of the nearby high-rise buildings, the architects created a formal and dignified building to both renewing the local neighborhood and refreshing the public vision of the role of the courts as serious and respectful.

Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye summed up what has been achieved with the design: “The physical environment of a court should reflect the gravity and seriousness of the business conducted within and engender respect for the administration of justice…Now, after decades of hardship, these [Family and Supreme] courts will finally have a suitable home…This exciting new project in Brooklyn is part of New York City’s master plan for the renovation and construction of courthouses in all five boroughs.”

57

58

Owner

City of New York New York, New York Architect of Record Perkins Eastman New York, New York Structural Engineer Gilsanz Murray New York, New York Mechanical Engineer WSP Flack & Kurtz New York, New York

General Contractor Turner Construction Photographer Chuck Choi Architectural Photography Brooklyn, New York

Building Area: 1,100,000 BGSF; 770,000 NAA (180,000 BGSF is for speculative office) Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds, Public Private Partnership

Completion Date: 2005

Delivery Method: Design Build

Construction Cost: $ 540.0 million

Type of Construction: New

Number of Courtrooms: 84 (74 courtrooms, 10 hearing rooms)

LEED Certificate: None

Type of Court: Criminal, Domestic, Juvenile, Drug

59

Berkeley County Judicial Center • Martinsburg, West Virginia The new Berkeley County Judicial Center is an adaptive reuse of a 1920’s woolen mill, 1980’s outlet mall, and 1990’s community and technical college. The original U-shaped Berkeley Building was constructed of brick and heavy timber built in phases from 1917 to 1927. The new design celebrates the original woolen mill by emphasizing its form and materials, while creating a contemporary expression leading the County and Judiciary into the 21st Century. A contrasting new protruding glass entrance fills the U-shaped building creating a usable court floor plate.

Original exterior walls are exposed in a new three-story

60

light well creating a grand public space that serves to orient the public within the new large floor plate.

The third and fourth floor, which houses the Magistrate Court and Circuit Court respectively, is connected through this open space by glass railing bridges and serves as entrances to the courtrooms. The backdrop of the judges’ benches within the courtrooms also takes advantage of the existing brick window openings that expose the building’s history.

The project’s goal was to safely consolidate all judicial operations (Circuit, Magistrate,

and Family Courts, Clerk of the Magistrate and Circuit Courts, Grand Jury, Prosecuting Attorney, Probation, Law Library, Court Support, and Central Holding) under one roof in a modern judicial facility that allows for future growth and expansion. Using the buildings that comprised the outlet mall allowed the County to consolidate the entire judiciary and support system within downtown Martinsburg.

The new government campus anchored by the Judicial Center provides parking, room for expansion, and greater efficiency and ease of use for the community and employees.

Owner

Berkeley County Commission Martinsburg, West Virginia Architect of Record AECOM Architects Arlington, Virginia Landscape Architect Lee & Associates, Inc. Washington, DC Civil Engineer Alpha Associates, Inc. Martinsburg, West Virginia

Structural and Mechanical Engineer AECOM Arlington, Virginia General Contractor Brechbill & Helman Construction Company, Inc. Chambersburg, Pennsylvania Photographer Erik Svensson — Building Photography Centreville, Virginia Brechbill & Helman — Aerial Photography Completion Date: 2006 Number of Courtrooms: 9 Courtrooms, Hearing Room, and Grand Jury Room

Construction Cost: $20.4 million Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Drug, Small, Claims, Traffic, Probate Building Area: New - 41,200 GSF, Renovated - 81,406 GSF Financing Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: Reuse, Addition, and Renovation LEED Certification: None

61

Calaveras County Courthouse • Andreas, California

The Calaveras County Courthouse is located on an undeveloped rural site with the base of the building taking cues from the natural surroundings. Mitigating the extreme grade changes, freeflowing and organic but weighted and grounded in its materiality, the base becomes the wellspring from which the upper floors emanate.

Programmatically, the Clerk of Court, jury assembly, and the court support offices are housed on the first level. The upper level of the building is ordered, orthogonal, and balanced. Here the courtrooms are juxtaposed against the base. At the roof line, the four courtroom volumes are expressed against a datum of metal that is symbolic of the mountains beyond.

The building interior is organized around a two-story great hall visually linking the publicly accessed functions and offering the

62

ease of wayfinding. The building folds in on itself expressing this central space from the building approach, connecting between the interior and exterior. The great hall also extends to the exterior design.

The site organization and entry procession situates the courthouse in a place of prominence at the top of an existing knoll. The entry pavilion is positioned as the terminus for the entry drive and defines the building at a larger scale. Pedestrian access from the public parking area is across a carefully proportioned entry plaza signifying the arrival at a place of importance. The double height entry lobby transitions the scale from exterior to interior prior to arriving at the security screening checkpoint. The northern portion of the site has parking areas for the staff along with secure sublevel parking.

Owner

Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts Sacramento, California Architect of Record DLR Group Sacramento, California Landscape Architect Wood Rogers Sacramento, California Civil Engineer Wood Rogers Sacramento, California Structural Engineer Buehler & Buehler Sacramento, California Mechanical and Plumbing Engineer Capital Engineering Rancho Cordova, California Electrical Engineer The Engineering Enterprise Auburn, California Owner Pre-Construction CM URS Sacramento, California Completion Date: 2012 Construction Cost: $ 21.3 million Number of Courtrooms: 4 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Juvenile, Domestic, Small Claims, Traffic, Probate, Appellate Building Area: 44,621 BGSF; 31,040 NAA Finance Method: Revenue Bonds Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Silver

63

CITATION

Clark County Regional Justice Center • Las Vegas, Nevada Designed to consolidate scattered urban judicial services into one location, provide economic renewal to a blighted area of downtown, and serve as platform for virtual court services, the 19-story, 702,000-square-foot Clark County Regional Justice Center houses the District, Justice, Municipal, and State Supreme Courts.

The $185 million facility echoes the traditional courthouse by providing an elevated glazed entrance plaza projecting a strong identity to the street. This plaza anchors the west end of a four block legal corridor redeveloping a deteriorating area of city’s heart. A three-story glass atrium draws daylight deep into the heart of the building; a canyon-like area with native sandstone walls inscribed with quotations reflects the universal concept of justice.

Keeping with modern courthouse design principles, the Regional Justice Center is served by three circulation systems separating public, staff, and inmate zones. Security is an integral part of the courthouse design. To project an open image of the courts,

the building was designed to have a positive and welcoming presence while carefully and discretely integrating state-of-the-art security controls into the building.

Innovative court leadership had the vision to design the Justice Center’s utility entrance facilities and technology infrastructure to accommodate a virtual access to justice. Supported by vertically aligned technology rooms and an onsite server farm, wired and wireless network is scalable to 10 gigabytes.

This integration of new facility, technology, and public access has provided exceptional remote access to justice. By moving information to individuals, the virtual court vision has created opportunities to provide justice anywhere, at anytime, while offering public service choices such as web/ phone payment, e-filing, interactive evidence presentation, creation of an electronic court case, and video arraignment/remote testimony.

Jury Comment The project represents excellence in design for a large and complicated

program on a constrained urban site.

In addition to being well organized and very functional, the jury found three elements of the courthouse to be particularly noteworthy: the use of natural lighting, the Wall of Justice, and the planning for future technology.

The extensive use of natural light and views from public areas to the outside are exceptional throughout.

The level of stress in the building is reduced and the sense of openness, freedom of movement, and ease of access has a positive impact on visitors. The significant use of glass was viewed as a bold and successful design response considering the extreme summer temperatures in this desert location.

The Wall of Justice is a thoughtful and powerful reflection on the concept of justice from various cultures and times throughout the world. Quotations, engraved at various locations and heights, span the entire length of the stone atrium wall expressing the development of justice and the impact of cultures on the development of society as a whole. The Wall of Justice can be viewed from public circulation areas throughout the first three floors of the building serving as a constant reminder of the building’s purpose.

Jury members also recognized that the architect anticipated and planned for continued evolution of the courthouse as demonstrated by the attention and space given to future technologies. Original building infrastructure, including the technology platform, has enabled this facility to implement a self-help service center, web/phone payment, e-filing, interactive evidence presentation, electronic court case management and storage system, video arraignment, and in-courtroom remote testimony.

64

65

66

Owner

Clark County Las Vegas, Nevada Architect of Record Tate Snyder Kimsey Architects Henderson, Nevada Court Consultant HDR, Inc. Chicago, Illinois Civil Engineer Poggemeyer Design Group Las Vegas, Nevada Structural Engineer Leslie E. Roberts & Associates New York, New York Mechanical | Electrical Engineer JBA Consulting Engineers Las Vegas, Nevada Programming Dan Wiley & Associates, Inc. Stuart, Florida Photographer Alan Karchmer Photography Washington, DC Photographer Tom Bonner Photography Santa Monica, California Completion Date: 2005 Construction Cost: $ 135.0 million Number of Courtrooms: 42 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Drug, Traffic Building Area: 701,776 BGSF; 469,122 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds, Court Fees Delivery Method: Single Prime Contract Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

67

Clay County Courthouse • Green Cove Springs, Florida The Clay County Courthouse project included the design of a new 89,000 square foot addition to an existing 1970’s era courthouse. The existing overcrowded facility with its dated design did not provide separate secure prisoner circulation. The new addition allows for the creation of dedicated secure prisoner circulation. Renovation work in the existing 76,000 square foot building primarily involved the redesign of portions of the bland existing façades to complement the new annex.

A major goal was the creation of a new image for the courthouse that distanced itself from the dated 1970s look of the existing building; one capturing the strength and dignity of the classic pre-war American courthouse with its brick façade and neo-classical vocabulary. To facilitate construction and reduce the overall schedule, the stone elements were designed as architectural precast concrete panels incorporating clay brick infill. The use of the clay brick infill provided a richly textured and marked contrast to the smooth white precast panels and trim giving the courthouse a dynamic façade expression. The principal elevation of the existing 1970s building was completely re-clad with new brick and wall panels.

As the largest and tallest building within the city, the courthouse massing, detailing, and façades were designed to reflect the dignity and gravitas of the judicial branch of government. The 130 foot tall clock tower serves as a landmark for motorists approaching the city from the north and south, while the colonnade defines the plaza which provides the foreground for the building. The new building’s form combines the monumental colonnaded façades of typical classical revival courthouses of the early 20th Century with the

68

vertical clock tower element found in most 19th Century Romanesque courthouses creating a unique 21st Century interpretation of the American courthouse type.

The four-story annex includes provisions for eight new state-

of-the-art courtrooms (four of which are shelled for future use), prisoner holding cells between pairs of courtrooms, eight judicial chamber suites with hearing rooms, consolidated offices for the Clerk of the Circuit Court, and miscellaneous building support spaces.

Owner Clay County Board of County Commissioners Green Cove Springs, Florida Architect of Record: AECOM Architects Coral Gables, Florida Associate Architect: Smith McCrary Architects, Inc. Jacksonville Beach, Florida

Court Programmer Dan L. Wiley & Associates Stuart, Florida Landscape Architect Janet O. Whitmill, RLA Jacksonville, Florida Civil Engineer C. Vargas & Associates, Ltd. Jacksonville, Florida Structural / Mechanical Engineer AECOM Coral Gables, Florida

Voice / Data / IT / Courtroom Technology / Security AECOM Coral Gables, Florida General Contractor Elkins Constructors, Inc. Jacksonville, Florida Photographer Mike Butler Completion Date: 2008 Number of Courtrooms: 6 courtrooms, 4 Hearing Rooms Construction Cost: $25.69 million Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Drug, Small Claims, Traffic, Probate Building Area: New - 88,755 GSF; 72,000 NAA, Renovation - 75,865 GSF; 75,865 NAA Financing Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Construction Manager at Risk Type of Construction: Addition, Renovation LEED Certification: None

69

Cumberland County Justice Center • Burkesville, Kentucky The design goal of Cumberland County Judicial Center was to provide a new facility on the historic courthouse square in Burkesville, Kentucky, while preserving the historic character of the existing courthouse.

The long, narrow site made it challenging to develop a programmatic layout addressing the required relationships between public and private areas; however, a design solution that allowed public areas to reflect back on the courthouse square and provided creative building segregation was developed.

The public entry was located at the front of the facility off the historic courthouse square, while

70

the secure entry was located at the rear of the facility off an adjacent side street. With public spaces oriented toward the front of the facility, the design kept the town’s historic courthouse square a focal point from the public lobby. Private offices/spaces were placed toward the back of the facility, making it easier to establish the required security for these areas. The main courtroom space was located between the public and private areas allowing a secure interface between the public and private zones.

The first level of this 24,270 square foot facility houses a hearing room, sally port, holding cells, witness areas, pre-trial

area, clerks’ offices, and other support functions. Above these areas, the jury courtroom, judges’ offices, holding cells, witness and attorney/client areas, conference rooms, law library, substantial public lobby spaces, and other supporting spaces are located on the second level.

To enhance the sense of openness in the narrow courthouse’s most public areas, the design developed circulation space along an exterior side wall with large windows adjacent to the new judicial center plaza. This placement allows natural light to flood the circulation space and provides views back onto the plaza.

Owner

Cumberland County Fiscal Court Burkesville, Kentucky Architect of Record GRW Lexington, Kentucky Structural Engineer Poage Engineers & Associates Lexington, Kentucky

Civil / Mechanical / Electrical Engineer GRW Lexington, Kentucky

Completion Date: 2005

Construction Manager Codell Construction Winchester, Kentucky

Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Traffic, Small Claims, Drug, Probate

Photographer Walt Roycraft Photography Nicholasville, Kentucky

Building Area: 24,270 BGSF; 15,775 NAA

Construction Cost: $ 4.06 million Number of Courtrooms: 2

Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Construction Management Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

71

El Paso County Terry R. Harris Judicial Complex • Colorado Springs, Colorado The El Paso County Terry R. Harris Judicial Complex’s 187,000 square foot addition to the existing County Courthouse in Colorado Springs, Colorado, was sorely needed to augment and improve a facility constructed in the early 1960s. The project calls for the construction of eight new courtrooms, one hearing room, and the necessary support spaces of jury deliberation, clerk, and judges’ chamber space. In addition, the upper two floors of the court tower were shelled for future fit-out for an additional six courtrooms.

The goal was to create a building reflecting the dignity and honor appropriate to a courthouse, and make a notable civic statement sympathetic to the existing complex and the fabric of downtown Colorado Springs. Situated between an existing county jail to the north and the original courthouse to the south, the new addition physically links to the latter and is visually linked to both.

The addition responds respectfully to its context, yet establishes a new civic identity.

The design draws from the surrounding context with an emphasis on the horizontal line differentiating it from commercial or religious structures. The clarity and directness of the elevation calls attention to the seriousness of what this building represents and sets it apart from the superficial character and imagery of day-to-day commercial architecture.

The Design Team worked “insideout” and “outside-in” to define the building massing and respond to a variety of scales creating a gentle transition to the smaller size and scale of the buildings on the adjacent blocks. It also allows the building to become an extension of its physical surroundings and to reflect the transitional geography of this part of Colorado.

72

Owner

El Paso County Colorado Springs, Colorado Architect of Record DLR Group Colorado Springs, Colorado Partner or Joint Venture Anderson Mason Dale Denver, Colorado Landscape Architect Design Collaborative Denver, Colorado Civil / Structural Engineer S.A. Miro, Inc. Denver, Colorado Mechanical Engineer RMH Group Lakewood, Colorado General Contractor GE Johnson Construction Company Colorado Springs, Colorado Photographer Time Frame Images Boulder, Colorado Ooms Studio Denver, Colorado Completion Date: 2006 Construction Cost: $ 30.64 million Number of Courtrooms: 43 total; 15 in new construction Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Traffic, Small Claims, Drug, Probate Building Area: New - 189,462 BGSF; 123,150 NAA, Renovation - 10,000 BGSF; 10,000 NAA Finance Method: Certificates of Participation Delivery Method: CM / GC Type of Construction: Addition, Renovation LEED Certificate: None

73

CITATION

Essex County Courthouse • Newark, New Jersey The Essex County Courthouse, designed by famed architect Cass Gilbert, was completed in 1905. Unquestionably one of New Jersey’s most magnificent public buildings, this five-story, marble-clad structure listed on the New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places is graced by artwork from several significant artists of the American Renaissance period. The completed work is a prime example of a successful approach to modernizing a significant historic structure while simultaneously conserving and restoring the full range of exterior and interior structural and decorative elements to their original grandeur.

Despite being built of the highest quality materials available in its day, by the end of the 20th Century, the Essex County Courthouse did not have the technological systems (air conditioning, fire suppression, telecommunications, and security) necessary for the operation of a modern courthouse. Neglected and in a state of disrepair, the building was closed in the mid-1990’s and court functions were relocated.

The restoration was undertaken in three phases. Phase 1 included developing a space allocation program for the Civil Division of the Superior Court and undertaking a careful architectural and historical analysis of the existing building. Phase 2 addressed the exterior of the courthouse. The façade was cleaned and restored, missing and deteriorated decorative elements were replicated, and the windows were restored. Nine marble statues on the entablature were also conserved and seismic restraints were installed.

Phase 3 involved a comprehensive interior restoration and renovation and completed the restoration of the exterior with repairs to the entrance stair and plaza, roof, and building drainage system.

The 10 historic courtrooms were restored and a new courtroom was

74

added on the first floor to accommodate expanded judicial needs. Restoration of the murals and historical finishes throughout the building was completed.

The building systems were replaced to enhance occupant safety, create comfortable environmental conditions, and to provide modern security and telecommunications services.

Jury Comment Beginning in 2005, the Cass Gilbert designed Essex County Courthouse underwent a total renovation in an effort to return the deteriorated building to active service meeting the needs of Essex County.

The jury was impressed that this historic building now houses 11 civil jury sessions for the Court of General Jurisdiction while providing a majestic setting for a wide variety of ceremonies

and public events. The jury felt that the detail and quality of the renovation would inspire all involved in the trial process –judges, lawyers, litigants, and jurors—to achieve justice of the highest quality in each and every case.

The extensive restoration of this neglected gem clearly reflects the determination of the Essex County Bar, the county judiciary, and the will of local citizens to reclaim those forgotten parts of their heritage which are looked upon with pride. Returning this splendid and symbolically important civic building to public service for the community renews that pride and gives impetus to other revitalization efforts seeking to reclaim the best from the past and leading the way into the future. The jury felt that the restored Essex County Courthouse sets the standard for the restoration and revitalization of historic court facilities.

75

76

Owner

Essex County Newark, New Jersey

Acoustics and A/V Consultant Acentech, Inc. Cambridge, Massachusetts

Finishes and Restoration Contractor Hall Construction Company, Inc. Howell, New Jersey

Architect of Record Farewell Mills Gatsch Architects, LLC Princeton, New Jersey

Stained Glass Conservation Julie Sloan North Adams, Massachusetts

Photographer Brian Rose New York, New York

Landscape Architect Barreto / Dowd Howell, New Jersey

Historic Paint Analysis Welsh Color and Conservation Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania

Completion Date: 2005

Civil / Structural Engineer Schoor DePalma Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Mural Consultant Farancz Painting Conservation Studio New York, New York

Mechanical Engineer J.R. Loring and Associates Princeton, New Jersey

Mural Restoration Evergreene New York, New York

Interior Architect – Furniture Switzer Group New York, New York

Construction Management Tishman / Century 21 Newark, New Jersey

Lighting Design Ann Kale Lighting Santa Barbara, California

General Contractor Cobra Construction Company, Inc. North Arlington, New Jersey

Materials Conservation Building Conservation Associates New York, New York

Furniture Restoration Triestman and Sons, Inc. dba Olek Lejbzon & Company Newark, New Jersey

Construction Cost: $43.0 million Number of Courtrooms: 11 (1 new) Type of Court: Civil Building Area: 106,000 BGSF; 75,000 NAA Finance Method: Historic preservation grants from the NJ Historic Trust Delivery Method: Construction Management Type of Construction: Renovation / Historic Restoration LEED Certificate: None

77

Fairfax County Courthouse • Fairfax, Virginia This newly-expanded Fairfax County Courthouse consolidates three court groups under one roof.

Located in an historic area, the courthouse was programmed to address overcrowding, shortage of courtrooms, disjointed traffic and paper flow, illogical deployment of space, compromised security, and other concerns. The facility has 42 courtrooms; 17 in the new addition and 25 in the existing renovated courthouse.

The horizontal deployment of courtrooms establishes major circulation pathways and is a primary influence on the shape and massing of the new structure.

The adjacent historical courthouse, built in 1800, is a national landmark and is still in use today. The new facility was designed to express

78

the civic purpose through scale, massing, and materials sensitive to the historic courthouse. The location of the judicial chambers creates three two-story pavilions; breaking down the mass to a scale more sympathetic to the two- and three-story structures across the street.

Juvenile judges’ chambers were configured in a collegial arrangement with shared support spaces and staff to allow for greater interaction. A series of day offices were developed as an office park to allow outside support agencies to have a safe, secure, and accessible work/meeting space.

The design includes the maximum use of daylighting. Either natural clerestory lighting or perimeter

lighting is provided to all courtrooms and public spaces.

The wider footprint portion of the expansion contains a combination of open and closed offices that are provided with daylight from the sides and the narrow footprint portions of the expansion are naturally lit either from the perimeter or from the new enclosed quadrangle.

To facilitate access throughout the building, well-defined wayfinding and signage by color and type is incorporated. The escalators provide additional access to the main three floors and connections to the existing facility. Courtroom technology including evidence display monitors and assistive listening devices are provided throughout.

Owner

Fairfax County, Virginia Fairfax, Virginia

Landscape Architect Thomas James & Associates West Chester, Pennsylvania

General Contractor DICK Corporation Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Architect of Record HDR Architecture, Inc. Alexandria, Virginia

Civil Engineer PSA Dewberry Fairfax, Virginia

Photographer Alan Karchmer Architectural Photographer Washington, DC

Partner Kallmann McKinnell & Wood Architects Boston, Massachusetts

Structural / Mechanical Engineer: HDR Architecture, Inc. Alexandria, Virginia

Completion Date: 2009

Court Programming Dan L. Wiley and Associates, Inc. Stuart, Florida

Cost Estimating / Value Engineering: Morris Wade Associates Alexandria, Virginia

Number of Courtrooms: 42 total; 17 new, 25 renovated Construction Cost: $86.0 million Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Traffic Building Area: New - 328,000 GSF; 255,840 NAA, Renovation - 268,000 GSF; 186,915 NAA Financing Method: Public Bond Issue Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: Addition, Renovation LEED Certification: Designed to LEED but not submitted

79

Fall River Justice Center • Fall River, Massachusetts The Fall River Justice Center is located on historic South Main Street in Fall River, a former industrial city in southeastern Massachusetts with beautiful views across Mt. Hope Bay. The 154,000 square foot building serves the Superior and District Court departments and contains nine courtrooms, clerk and probation transaction offices, law library, jury pool, and detention areas. Sited at the former location of a failed 1980s retail mall, the state-of-theart building provides much needed secure modern facilities replacing two separate and dysfunctional historic court buildings.

The L-shaped building organizes public spaces around a central core.

The structural bay is based on the dimensions of the courtrooms and most floors are the same height to allow the building to more easily be reconfigured in the future.

Three separate circulation systems define movement for staff, detainees, and the public. Courtrooms are paired around detainee cores on the upper two floors. The public spaces are shaped by a curving glass wall creating an interior porch on each floor. This clarity of circulation eases wayfinding and provides the public with abundant light and views without the architectural and MEP/energy costs related to atrium spaces.

All courtrooms have direct natural light and continuous bands of windows provide an even distribution of natural light to all areas of the building while allowing flexibility for changes as new functional needs develop.

The site slopes steeply from back to front; yet is designed to facilitate equal access while providing a civic plaza on South Main Street as a gathering space and as a

80

buffer from the busy street. The building concept reflects the public importance of a courthouse and contributes to the urban fabric of downtown Fall River in dignity and quality of materials. The curving transparent façade anchored by the rough stone faced stair towers at each end, embraces the public plaza and makes a strong gesture to the main street.

Creative use of specialty materials such as light grey dolomite limestone and renewable eucalyptus millwork combined with durable, more standard materials throughout, balanced all of the project goals of dignity, community, accessibility, security, and sustainability within a responsible budget for a state court facility.

Owner

Division of Capital Asset Management Commonwealth of Massachusetts Boston, Massachusetts Architect of Record Finegold Alexander + Associates, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts

Landscape Architect Carol R. Johnson Associates Boston, Massachusett

Structural Engineer Richmond So Engineers, Inc. Cambridge, Massachusetts

Civil Engineer Mistry Associates, Inc. Reading, Massachusetts

Mechanical Engineer Arup Boston, Massachusetts Interior Design Stefura Associates Boston, Massachusetts Lighting Consultants Collaborative Lighting Concord, Massachusetts Cost Estimator Faithful + Gould Boston, Massachusetts Acoustical Engineer Acentech Cambridge, Massachusetts General Contractor / Construction Manager Dimeo Construction Company Providence, Rhode Island Photographer Finegold Alexander + Associates, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts Completion Date: 2010 Construction Cost: $ 64.0 million Number of Courtrooms: 9 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Small Claims, Traffic Building Area: 154,150 BGSF; 72,080 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Construction Management Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Silver

81

Franklin County Courthouse • Columbus, Ohio The transparency of the American justice system is proudly proclaimed in the new sevenstory, environmentally sustainable Franklin County Courthouse in Columbus, Ohio. The new courthouse brings controlled daylight via clerestories into the heart of the building and courtrooms. All public areas have a visual connection to the outside and the surrounding urban environment. Creative use of glass, open space, and natural light has produced an efficient and maintainable building of 325,000 square feet reflecting a modern expression of a traditional courthouse.

With over 219,000 square feet of usable space, the building houses 32 courtrooms and is designed and constructed to allow horizontal expansion. It is the first green Ohio courthouse; sustainable building materials are used throughout including recycled asphalt pavers and steel, and features sustainable harvested hickory for gallery and courtroom wall panels and benches.

A particular challenge was the expansion of the existing government center with a new courts building while maintaining connectivity for all of the vital processes and required separate circulation. Since the new building houses only the general division of the Common Pleas Court, attorneys and staff had to be able to travel freely without having to make multiple passes through security screening. The new courthouse is connected to the existing government center by a three-compartment tunnel system providing access to court users, and a secure passage for detainees housed in the county jail facility. A newly built pavilion serves as a main entry to the connector and tunnel, allowing easy access to the new facility

82

from the current Franklin County Government Center.

The site and the building have been planned to allow the addition of a

future building to the north, and to allow that future building to connect through to the existing government center using the new tunnel and entry pavilion.

Owner

Board of Franklin County Commissioners Columbus, Ohio Owner Representative / Development Manager Pizzuti Solutions, LLC Columbus, Ohio Architect of Record Design Group Columbus, Ohio Design Architect Arquitectonica New York, New York Courts Architect RicciGreene Associates New York, New York Landscape Architect Kinzelman Kline Gossman, LLC Columbus, Ohio Civil Engineer DL2 Columbus, Ohio Structural Engineer Shelley Metz Baumann Hawk, Inc. Columbus, Ohio Mechanical Engineer Heapy Engineering Columbus, Ohio Construction Manager Gilbane Westerville, Ohio Completion Date: 2010 Construction Cost: $ 90.5 million Number of Courtrooms: 32 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil Building Area: 353,540 BGSF; 219,000 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build, Multiple Prime Contract Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Gold

83

CITATION

George Allen Sr. Courthouse • Dallas, Texas The expanded George Allen Sr. Courthouse is the home for the Dallas County Civil Courts consolidating four previously disjointed Court jurisdictions into a single structure. The expansion/ renovation has significantly improved operational efficiency and overall building security, while providing a clearly defined point of entry. The courthouse addition responds to the site and program on two levels: the scale of the building and the scale of the city.

The building creates a respectful refinement of the existing area while boldly stating a new presence in Dallas. The new entry Grand Hall, used for special ceremonial functions, is centered on the President John F. Kennedy Plaza providing a monumental terminus and backdrop to this important and historic downtown public plaza.

Major improvements realized by the George Allen Sr. Courthouse include 18 new state-of-the-art courtrooms, a spacious public entry, increased building access through the addition of high speed elevators and escalators, consolidation of clerk and staff support space, heightened building safety systems and site safeguards, separation of staff and judicial corridors from public spaces, separation of secure parking and vertical transportation from public, ADA and accessibility complaint features, increased attorney/client conference rooms, and increased public seating are provided for each existing court floor.

The REES team of professionals collaborating with members of the Court created a flexible courtroom layout capable of meeting the needs of multiple civil court jurisdictions.

All but one of the new courtrooms is identical; one large Ceremonial Courtroom is capable of serving

84

large multi-litigate trials as well as appellate court hearings.

The existing building was comprised of eight courtrooms per floor. Each court floor now contains three new ADA-compliant and state-ofthe-art courtrooms, six existing courtrooms, and expanded public and support areas. High volume/ high risk Family and IV-D Courts were relocated to the first two court floor levels to improve security response times, while three new high-speed elevators and escalator service to the fourth floor double capacity and reduce waiting times.

Jury Comment The jury felt this project dramatically transformed an uninspired, nondescript structure of the 1960’s into a facility appropriate for its role as a courthouse in a major American city. This design imparts dignity and stateliness to the George Allen Sr. Courthouse,

markedly improves operational effectiveness in the civil courts, and simultaneously brings the original dated structure gracefully into the 21st Century.

Limited by a constrained site, the architect has successfully resolved the myriad challenges and problems inherent in many courthouses constructed during the post-WWII era. The emergence of this revitalized courthouse provides an appropriate monumental setting without creating an overbearing presence to the historically important plaza honoring the late President Kennedy. The architect is commended for efforts made in finding and matching stone from the same quarry that supplied the marble for the exterior of original building nearly 50-years earlier.

The new work provides a clear point of entry and identity that was lacking in the original structure.

A spacious lobby is directly

accessible from street level and two underground parking garages. The lobby enables the staff to screen and manage the high daily traffic volume of courthouse visitors with ease. Vertical movement within the courthouse is augmented by escalators and high speed elevators. Wayfinding is clear and straightforward.

Natural light is introduced into the public corridors with views overlooking the Presidential Plaza and three neighboring historic buildings. Attention to daylight, public seating, and exterior views provide a comfortable and respectful environment for the public.

85

Owner

Dallas County Commissioners Court Dallas, Texas Architect of Record Rees Associates, Inc. Dallas, Texas Landscape Architect Mesa Design Group Dallas, Texas Civil Engineer Jaster-Quintanilla Dallas, LLP Dallas, Texas Structural Engineer Charles Gojer and Associates, Inc. Dallas, Texas Mechanical Engineer Lopez Garcia Group Dallas, Texas Programming Dan L. Wiley & Associates Stuart, Florida Associate Architect Johnson / McKibben Architects, Inc. Dallas, Texas General Contractor W. G. Yates and Sons Construction Co. Fort Worth, Texas Photographer Blackink Photography Dallas, Texas Completion Date: 2007 Construction Cost: $ 40.0 million Number of Courtrooms: 18 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic Building Area: New - 181,900 BGSF, Renovation - 430,900 BGSF, Total - 612,800 BGSF, 459,600 NAA Finance Method: Court Fees Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: New, Renovation LEED Certificate: None

86

87

Harlan County Justice Center • Harlan, Kentucky The Harlan County Justice Center is immediately adjacent to the existing 1920s Greek Revival courthouse. In addition to making it possible for the Harlan County judicial system to operate in a more dignified and secure manner, the new building was designed to be contemporary yet respectful of, and sensitive to, the design of the existing historic building. During construction, conduit was placed with the intention of placing overhead electrical and phone utility lines underground in the future. These utility line relocations are now complete. A pedestrian plaza was developed between the old and new buildings; site lighting was coordinated with the City of Harlan’s adjacent convention center project and Kentucky Main Street Program Manager; and a mixture of cut stone, brick, and wood-framed windows were chosen as exterior finishes.

88

The planning and design for security and operational efficiencies include secure parking area, sally port area for defendant unloading, one individual and two group holding

cells on each floor, secure client-attorney conference space, separate defendant elevator, video conference arraignment capabilities, single point entry, security control, and monitoring.

Owner

Harlan County Fiscal Court Lexington, Kentucky Architect of Record GRW Lexington, Kentucky Landscape Architect M2D Design Group (previously McIlwain Associates) Lexington, Kentucky Civil Engineer Leo Miller Associates Harlan, Kentucky Structural Engineer Poage Engineers & Associates Lexington, Kentucky Mechanical / Electrical Engineer Staggs & Fisher Lexington, Kentucky Construction Manager Codell Construction Winchester, Kentucky Photographer Walt Roycraft Photography Nicholasville, Kentucky Completion Date: 2004 Construction Cost: $ 6.39 million Number of Courtrooms: 3 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Traffic, Small Claims, Drug, Probate Building Area: 31,500 BGSF; 20,475 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Construction Management Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

89

Haywood County Justice Center • Waynesville, North Carolina

The design of the Haywood County Justice Center in Waynesville, North Carolina is a measured response to its historic and natural context.

The new Justice Center pays homage to the adjacent historic courthouse by its juxtaposition in the site, views between the entries, and relationships of proportions and material palette.

The materials, proportions, and scale of the Historic Courthouse are reinterpreted in the architectural detailing of the new building’s entry pavilion. The project introduced modern building materials and technology to a small historic city to create a stateof-the-art courthouse facility.

The courthouse sits on a plateau above the new six-story parking garage resting on the valley floor and is connected to the judicial complex by a pedestrian bridge.

The relationship of the parking garage to the judicial complex is critical to maintaining impressive views of the surrounding Smoky Mountains. The building and resulting public spaces create a dialogue between the new Justice Center, the Historic Courthouse, and the mountainous topography defining the region.

90

Owner

Haywood County Waynesville, North Carolina Architect of Record Heery International, Inc. Orlando, Florida Landscape Architect Heery International Orlando, Florida

Civil / Structural / Mechanical Engineer Heery International Orlando, Florida

Completion Date: 2005

General Contractor Heery International Orlando, Florida

Type of Court: Criminal, Civil

Photographer Heery International Orlando, Florida

Finance Method: Certificates of Participation

Construction Cost: $ 4.1 million Number of Courtrooms: 5 Building Area: 88,881 BGSF

Delivery Method: Single Prime Contract Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

91

Hialeah Courthouse • Hialeah, Florida Part of the urban fabric of this family-oriented community, the Hialeah Courthouse is situated in the heart of the City and at the center of new downtown development.

Distinguished as an important civic building, its classic, stoic form conveys the gravity and dignity of the functions within. The facility includes the Administrative Office of the Courts; the Clerk of the Circuit; and space for Traffic, Public Assistance, Civil Public Assistance, Domestic Violence Assistance, office staff, and Post-Judgment Rooms. There are two courtrooms, two hearing rooms, and one shelled courtroom.

The courthouse is recognizable by the monumental portico along the south façade of the building which creates an inviting front porch offering protection from the elements and a place to meet before entering. The courthouse is organized around an interior breezeway containing the entry lobby and circulation to the second level. The entry hall complements the portico and feels like an extension with its natural lighting and continuation of exterior floor, wall, and ceiling finishes. This foyer is intersected by the public circulation space leading to all other court functions.

Local materials used in traditional public buildings in Florida and Havana were carefully selected to represent this important civic building.

Structural and finish materials were chosen to meet the aesthetic requirements and economic expectations, as well as longevity, durability, and ease of maintenance.

92

Owner

Cost Estimating Faithful & Gould Maitland, Florida

Architect of Record HOK Miami, Florida

General Contractor Department of Building and Maintenance City of Hialeah Hialeah, Florida

City of Hialeah Hialeah, Florida

Landscape Architect Curtis + Rogers Design Studio, Inc. Coconut Grove, Florida Civil Engineer EAC Consulting, Inc. Miami, Florida Structural Engineer Bliss and Nyitray, Inc. Miami, Florida Mechanical Engineer Hufsey-Nicolaides-GarciaSuarez Associates, Inc. Miami, Florida Security, Data and Telecommunications TLC Engineering for Architecture Orlando, Florida

Photographer Forer, Inc. (Interiors) Miami, Florida Chroma, Inc. (Exterior) Tampa, Florida Completion Date: 2004 Construction Cost: $6.8 millions Number of Courtrooms: 2 Courtrooms, 2 Hearing Rooms, 1 Shelled Courtroom Type of Court: Civil, Domestic, Traffic Building Area: 36,466 BGSF; 21,438 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds, Court Fees Delivery Method: Construction Management Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

93

J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center • Salem, Massachusetts The J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center is a dignified modern courthouse sited on Federal Street adjacent to the historic Probate and Family Court building. The new facility and the neighboring historic courthouse, to be renovated in a later project, create a court campus providing a convenient one-stop location for users and create opportunities for shared efficiencies for the trial court.

Seen from the north, the brick clad pair of courtroom volumes marks an important gateway to the city at a monumental scale reflecting the civic importance of the new court campus and relates to the vehicular scale and long distance views of the cityscape along Bridge Street.

As a distinctly 21st Century civic building, the new trial court mediates between a treasured historic district composed of 18th and 19th Century residential buildings and a major vehicular approach to the city to the north. The design response was to place the smaller building volumes containing the Juvenile Court (with two courtrooms) and the Law Library (in the relocated and restored 1806 First Baptist Church building) with a landscaped plaza in between.

This design relates to the domestic scale of the residences and to the alternating rhythms of buildings and open spaces located across Federal Street. The new building’s Juvenile wing portico, colonnade, and entrance are a modern version of the adjacent Probate Court’s granite portico establishing the new court’s civic presence on Federal Street.

The balance of the nine courtrooms with transaction areas including probation, collegial judicial lobbies, jury deliberation rooms, and other support spaces, are ordered behind a multi-story glass loggia that provides circulation and waiting areas while visibly symbolizing the transparency of the modern judicial system.

94

The provision of natural light in all courtrooms was a fundamental design objective. A roof garden courtyard is cut into the heart of the building to provide natural light for the upper story courtrooms located at the middle of the bar.

Innovations include facilities for public self-help, victim/witness accommodation, and placement of the juvenile program in a separate wing connected with the main building only at the entry level, with provision for future connection at the third floor.

Owner

Division of Capital Asset Management Commonwealth of Massachusetts Boston, Massachusetts Architect of Record Goody Clancy Boston, Massachusetts

Landscape Architect Brown Richardson & Rowe Boston, Massachusetts

Structural Engineer Richmond So Engineers Watertown, Massachusetts

Civil Engineer Nitsch Engineering Boston, Massachusetts

Mechanical Engineer Cosentini Associates, Inc. Cambridge, Massachusetts Audio Visual & Acoustics Consultant Acentech Cambridge, Massachusetts Cost Estimator Faithful + Gould Boston, Massachusetts Construction Manager Daniel O’Connell’s Sons Holyoke, Massachusetts Completion Date: 2011 Construction Cost: $ 68.7 million Number of Courtrooms: 11 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Juvenile, Domestic, Small Claims, Traffic, Housing, Probate Building Area: New Construction - 191,000 BGSF; 120,000 NAA, Renovation - 10,000 BGSF; 8,000 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Construction Management Type of Construction: New, Renovation, historic building relocation and reuse LEED Certificate: Silver

95

Jefferson County Courthouse • Watertown, New York To address the Jefferson County Court’s need for increased space for the County, Family, and Surrogate Courts in addition to providing improved efficiency and security, the decision was made to build an addition to the turn-of-the-century Post Office.

An analysis of several properties resulted in the decision to purchase, restore, and reuse the historic Post Office. The project worked closely with the New York State Office of Historic Preservation to meet the Department of the Interior’s guidelines for adaptive re-use.

Working in close collaboration with the judges, clerks, commissioner of jurors, librarian, legislators, and county staff, the design integrates courthouse technology and security into the building. The restoration of significant architectural elements throughout the old Post Office included the elegant 1932 courtroom and various public spaces. The

96

30,000 square foot addition created contemporary space for the Family and Surrogate Courts.

The adaptive re-use of these buildings promotes downtown’s

economic vitality enlivening previously vacant spaces and bringing new purpose to Arsenal Street while restoring a key building in the city’s architectural heritage.

Owner

Jefferson County Watertown, New York

Mechanical Engineer Robson Woese, Inc. Consulting Engineers Syracuse, New York

Architect of Record RicciGreene Associates New York, New York

Historic Preservation Consultant Prudon & Partners New York, New York

Civil Engineer GYMO Architecture Engineering & Land Surveying Watertown, New York

Communications and Security Engineer Professional Systems Engineering, LLC Lansdale, Pennsylvania

Completion Date: 2004

Structural Engineer Klepper, Hahn & Hyatt East Syracuse, New York

Construction Manager Bernier Carr & Associates, P.C. Watertown, New York

Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Probate

Photographer Bjorg Magnea Architectural & Interior Photography New York, New York RicciGreene Associates New York, New York Number of Courtrooms: 4 Construction Cost: $12.0 million

Building Area: New - 32,023 GSF, Renovated - 48,690 GSF Financing Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build, Construction Management Type of Construction: Addition, Renovation LEED Certification: None

97

Justice A.A. Birch Courthouse Nashville-Davidson County Courthouse • Nashville, Tennessee The $42.9 million project includes the construction of a new Criminal Courts building and renovation of the adjacent Ben West building. The new six-story building houses 16 criminal courtrooms and chambers for the General Sessions Court and the Criminal Court, Sheriff’s central holding facilities, jury assembly, the General Sessions and Criminal Court Clerk of Court Offices, and other administrative and support functions.

An entry plaza provides a dignified urban setting for the public entrance located in a lower twostory volume between the new building and the historic red brick Ben West building. The exterior façade of the Justice A. A. Birch Courthouse are clad in highly articulated architectural precast panels complementing the art deco detailing of the historic courthouse across the street.

The critical courtroom floors were designed with four courts per floor that facilitates the use of the building by the public. A central elevator core directly leads to a generous 14-foot wide public waiting area that runs the length of the building and provides access to the courtrooms. Lined with large floor-to-ceiling windows, the corridor is flooded with natural light and provides sweeping views of downtown. Generous public lobbies and waiting spaces help manage the extremely large number of daily visitors expected in the courthouse.

All of the courtrooms in the facility are criminal trial capable with dedicated prisoner access and most have access to windows and natural light. The courtrooms include stateof-the-art technology including assistive listening systems, CCTV, duress systems, and evidence presentation systems.

98

The support areas consist of open office work station systems that have been carefully designed to maximize staff access to natural light while providing easy staff access to the public service counters. The service counters are designed to address the specific

requirements of each department and include open walk-up counters, open staffed counters, and secured transaction and payment counters.

Staff break rooms, staff toilets, and shared support areas were all designed to foster a more efficient and friendly work environment.

Owner

Metropolitan Government of Nashville-Davidson County Nashville, Tennessee Architect of Record Gresham Smith and Partners Nashville, Tennessee

Partner or Joint Venture AECOM Coral Gables, Florida

Civil / Mechanical / FP Engineer Gresham Smith and Partners Nashville, Tennessee

Landscape Architect Gresham Smith and Partners Nashville, Tennessee

Structural Engineer Teasley Services Group Nashville, Tennessee Security + Electrical Engineering AECOM Coral Gables, Florida Programming Justice Planning Associates, Inc. Columbia, South Carolina General Contractor Ray Bell Construction Co. Brentwood, Tennessee Photographer Mike Butler Completion Date: 2006 Construction Cost: $42.97 million Number of Courtrooms: 16 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Drug, Traffic, Small Claims, Probate Building Area: New - 234,671 BGSF; 195,000 NAA, Renovation - 39,770 GSF (1 floor) Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build, Construction Manager at Risk Type of Construction: New, Renovation LEED Certificate: None

99

Kim C. Hammond Justice Center Flagler County Courthouse • Bunnell, Florida The Flagler County Courthouse is the centerpiece of the new County Government Center located on the rural edge of Bunnell, Florida.

Sited at the end of a formal palmlined mall, the courthouse defines and embraces a generous civic plaza creating a new symbol for the local government. An entry pavilion serves as the focal point of the plaza while providing visitors and staff with a secure, dignified entry. The architectural precast concrete exterior panels with vertical projecting windows, provide a contrast to dominant vertical masses of the building.

The standing seam metal roof harmonizes with the roofs of the other facilities on the campus.

The courthouse contains 137,805 square feet of space in two wings: a four-story principal mass fronting on the plaza and a two-story wing defining one side of the plaza. The main building houses six courtrooms and judges’ chambers, three hearing rooms, the State Attorney, the Public Defender, Jury Assembly, and Court Administration. The two-story wing houses the Clerk of Court. All of the significant public areas within the building are organized around the linear circulation corridors providing continuous views of the civic plaza and serve to orient visitors to the building.

The interior of the courthouse was designed with a restrained palette of terrazzo floors, painted walls, and wood millwork. The public corridors have floating ceilings, while the courtrooms include elaborate coffered ceilings. The courtrooms are highlighted by wood pilasters and pendant light fixtures.

Extensive windows and skylights are used throughout introducing natural light into the building.

100

Card access, CCTV, duress, and intrusion detection systems are all connected to a central control room. The courtrooms are provided with evidence display systems that include mobile carts, document cameras,

and monitors for the jurors, witness, clerks, judge, attorneys, and spectators. The courtrooms also include assistive listening systems, sound amplification systems, and complete ADA accessibility.

Owner

Flagler County Board of County Commissioners Bunnell, Florida Architect of Record AECOM Coral Gables, Florida Partner or Joint Venture DJ Design, Inc. Holly Hill, Florida Landscape Architect Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc. Orlando, Florida Civil Engineer Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc. Orlando, Florida Structural / Mechanical Engineer AECOM Coral Gables, Florida Voice / Data / IT / Courtroom Technology Buholtz Professional Engineering, Inc. Sanford, Florida Programming Dan L. Wiley & Associates Stuart, Florida General Contractor Elkins Constructors, Inc. Jacksonville, Florida Photographer Mike Butler Completion Date: 2007 Construction Cost: $32.7 million Number of Courtrooms: 6 courtrooms, 4 hearing rooms Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Drug, Small Claims, Traffic, Probate Building Area: 137,805 BGSF; 110,000 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Construction Manager at Risk Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

101

Lake County Judicial Center • Tavares, Florida The Lake County Judicial Center for Tavares, Florida serves as the keystone for a four-block County government campus. By reorienting the existing judicial building, the new courts facility formally addresses Main Street with a public plaza providing a dignified setting and space for procession.

Design inspiration for the courthouse came in part from the County’s assemblage of public buildings including the 1922 Historic Courthouse, the Courts Annex, the current Judicial Building, and the County Criminal Justice Facility.

In keeping with this very diverse late 20th Century context, the new courthouse is transitional in its planar architecture of brick, glass, and metal. The modern material color palette and vocabulary of the campus are reinterpreted at new scales and with new forms.

The southern façade along Main Street reveals the civic purpose of the courthouse with large windows marking the court floors’ public lobbies. This prominent elevation evokes references to the opposing Historic Courthouse with its masonry arcaded base, columnar expression, and metallic sunscreen cornice. Sunlight-filled public spaces and courtrooms symbolize the openness and impartiality of our judicial system and humanize the setting for visitors, judges, and staff. The building takes advantage of the southern exposure through an elaborate system of sunshades and light shelves to bounce light deep into the public waiting areas and courtrooms.

The courthouse is simply organized: upper floor public spaces face Main Street serving 16 courtrooms and judicial chambers, and clerical functions in the administrative wing parallel the existing renovated justice building housing the Clerk

102

of Court, State Attorney, and Public Defender offices. These components are knit together by the six-story precast, concrete, and glass atrium tower which contains the public elevators. This vertical element serves to orient visitors to both the civic purpose of the building and their own civic responsibilities.

The position of the building in the site creates a keystone for a complex of buildings and open spaces for a four block government campus.

By expanding and reorienting the existing judicial building, the new courts facility integrates the government presence into the city by formally addressing Main Street.

Owner

Lake County Board of Commissioners Tavares, Florida Architect of Record Heery International Orlando, Florida Landscape Architect Heery International Orlando, Florida Civil / Structural / Mechanical Engineer Heery Intern ational Orlando, Florida Audio-Visual and Acoustic Design Newcomb & Boyd Atlanta, Georgia General Contractor Not Yet Selected Completion Date: 2012 Construction Cost: $ 46.2 million Number of Courtrooms: 16 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile Building Area: New - 168,026 BGSF, Renovation - 120,100 BGSF Finance Method: Revenue Bonds Delivery Method: Construction Management Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Designed to LEED but not submitted

103

Larimer County Justice Center • Fort Collins, Colorado The Larimer County Justice Center was designed to become the civic heart of downtown Fort Collins, Colorado. The Justice Center accommodates 400 employees and houses 14 courtrooms, District, County, Municipal, and Probationary offices, and a law library. The client’s charge was to create a building that was modern and efficient yet appearing as if it has always been there. Most important was to establish the Justice Center as a permanent, inspiring symbol of civic service expressing strength and stability.

By maintaining the historic scale found in the city’s Old Town turnof-the-century architecture and using red brick that harmonizes with nearby structures, the new building

104

fits into its context seamlessly.

Designed to reinforce a Civic Center Master Plan, the site design provides pedestrian-scaled public spaces interconnecting multiple blocks and strengthening the sense of a distinct civic center. A public plaza doubles as a forecourt for downtown’s civic area and features interactive fountains and an amphitheater with ample green space for community gatherings.

Modern design tenets ensured a comfortable, easy to navigate, and energy-efficient public building.

Ninety percent of the employees have natural light in their work areas. Traditional historical design elements were also essential with features such as arches, pediments, and columns. Interior arches over

doorways and behind judges’ benches are classic architectural motifs that support an image of authority.

The five-story, 170,000 square foot structure allowed stacking of the courts, as well as room for future expansion and generous public space.

Because the upper three floors of the building are set back from the street, the building establishes an historic scale while permitting abundant natural daylight into the building. In public corridors, the double doorway millwork and floating soffits above the doorways interpret the storefronts in many Larimer County townscapes. The facility reflects the spirit of the historic Old Town with the vibrancy of the New West culture in the community.

Owner

Larimer County Fort Collins, Colorado Architect of Record Fentress Architects Denver, Colorado Landscape Architect EDAW, Inc. Civil Engineer RJ McNutt Associates Greeley, Colorado Structural Engineer Jirsa + Hedrick & Associates Denver, Colorado

Mechanical Engineer McFall-Konkel & Kimball (MKK) Consulting Engineers, Inc. Trautman & Shreve

Completion Date: 2000

Security / AV Electronic Systems International, Inc. Colorado Springs, Colorado

Type of Court: Criminal, Civil

Programming SGS Group Los Angeles, California

Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds

General Contractor Hensel Phelps Construction Co. Greeley, Colorado

Type of Construction: New

Construction Cost: $ 43.5 million Number of Courtrooms: 14 Building Area: 170,000 BGSF

Delivery Method: Design / Build LEED Certificate: None

Photographer Nick Merrick, Hedrich Blessing, Ed Leland

105

Lehigh County Courthouse • Allentown, Pennsylvania Constructed in 1964 in downtown Allentown, the eight-story 170,000 square foot court and related agencies were in need of modernization and improvement.

The original goal was to expand and upgrade court agencies and courtrooms within the existing structure. Subsequently, the decision was made to design and construct a major four-story addition, upgrade fire protection and code compliance in the existing building, create new interior public spaces, and replace the 40-year-old façade enclosing both the new and old in a modern, high-performance curtain wall.

The project was implemented by an integrated project team with a Construction Manager coordinating multiple prime contracts, including a design-builder responsible for the exterior curtain wall.

106

The expansion of the existing courthouse required a phased renovation of the occupied building. The project objectives included increased efficiency within and between the agencies, creating modern courts operation, and meeting best practices in security and code compliance. The expansion provides five new courtrooms

with adjacent judicial chambers and support areas adding 80,000 square feet of space to the existing courthouse. The modernized and expanded County Courts building, with its 21st Century configuration, pedestrian-friendly plaza, and exuberant new entrance, confirms the County’s long-term commitment to Allentown.

Owner

Lehigh County Courts Allentown, Pennsylvania

Landscape Architect W Architecture & Landscape New York, New York

Construction Manager Alvin H. Butz, Inc. Allentown, Pennsylvania

Architect of Record RicciGreene Associates New York, New York

Civil / Structural Engineer Brinjac Engineering Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

General Contractor Alvin H. Butz, Inc. Allentown, Pennsylvania

Partner or Joint Venture The Architectural Studio Allentown, Pennsylvania

Mechanical Engineer Brinjac Engineering Allentown, Pennsylvania

Photographer Mikiko Kikuyama New York New York Completion Date: 2010 Number of Courtrooms: 12 Construction Cost: $45.0 million Type of Court: Criminal, High Security Building Area: New - 60,000 GSF, Renovation - 170,000 GSF Financing Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: Addition, Renovation LEED Certification: None

107

Leighton Judicial Complex Rhode Island Supreme Court • Warwick, Rhode Island Four times larger than its predecessor, the Leighton Judicial Complex embraces and overcomes the challenges of a new facility by providing security, accessibility, and flexibility, while best serving the public and the judicial staff. The 191,027 square foot complex includes space for 16 court rooms and office support space for the District, Family, and Superior Courts with each division occupying its own floor.

Architecturally, the building is rooted in maritime Rhode Island

108

with three simple, economical walls of traditional New England red brick with sandstone banding juxtaposed with the curtain wall of its primary public face. The entrance, a 95-foottall sail, provides a visual point of reference and its glass façade symbolizes the open judicial process while animating the building’s public spaces.

The architects sought to create a modern design with a complete clarity of expression of its functions—courts and administration—for visitors.

After passing security and entering the lobby of the courthouse, visitors discover the elevator bank and the public stair as a central reference point.

At each of the three upper floors, the public space is positioned between the courts arrayed in a simple row to the south, and all other departments and support offices are located to the north and west.

Owner

State of Rhode Island Architect of Record HOK New York, New York Landscape Architect HOK New York, New York Civil Engineer Vanasse, Hangen, Brustlin, Inc. Providence, Rhode Island Structural Engineer Odeh Engineering, Inc. N. Providence, Rhode Island Mechanical Engineer Vanderweil Engineering, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts General Contractor JL Marshal & Sons Seekonk, Massachusetts Photographer Adrian Wilson New York, New York Completion Date: 2006 Construction Cost: $43.2 million Number of Courtrooms: 16 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile Building Area: 191,027 BGSF; 162,373 NAA Finance Method: Appropriation Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

109

Lexington-Fayette Courthouse Complex Robert F. Stephens District and Circuit Courthouses • Lexington, Kentucky

The courthouse presents a strong image reflecting the integrity of its use while respecting the context of its neighborhood and clearly establishes a new focal point for downtown. The twostory stone base and front entry loggia coupled with the stepped symmetrical massing using classic materials and detailing fit the surrounding buildings and lessens the impact of the fivestory courthouse. The new court buildings frame a new public plaza located along the loggia serving the building entries.

All public waiting areas for the courtrooms face the new plaza.

A key decision was to divide the program into two buildings, one for the Circuit Court and the other for District Court. Because the buildings are separated by an existing street, a tunnel was used to accommodate movement for the public, staff, judges, and prisoners between the two buildings and an adjacent parking garage.

110

Owner

Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Lexington, Kentucky Architect of Record Sherman Carter Barnhart Architects, PSC Lexington, Kentucky

Partner or Joint Venture Hartman-Cox Architects-Design Architect Washington, DC

Structural Engineer Poage Engineers & Associates Lexington, Kentucky

Courts Planner RicciGreene Associates New York, Kentucky

Mechanical & Electrical Engineer CMTA, Inc. Consulting Engineers Lexington, Kentucky General Contractor CRSS Constructors, Construction Managers Lexington, Kentucky Photographer Bryan Becker Arlington, Virginia Completion Date: 2002 Construction Cost: $ 42.0 million Number of Courtrooms: 16 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Traffic, Small Claims, Appellate Building Area: 262,915 BGSF Finance Method: Revenue Bonds Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

111

Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse • Denver, Colorado Located in Denver’s historic Civic Center District, the Courthouse has a total of 35 courtrooms including one special proceedings jury courtroom with spectator seating for 120 people, and houses both Criminal and Juvenile State and County Courts.

This project required a close collaboration with Denver Justice Center Master Urban Design Architect, the City Planning Department, and neighborhood organizations.

The building successfully responds to the urban design guidelines set forth in the Urban Framework Plan. In addition, this modern civic building is located within the historic context of Denver’s Civic Center and is on a primary axial relationship to the U.S. Mint, the City and County Building, and the Colorado State Capitol.

The building’s exterior is clad in Alabama limestone and granite with a six-story, folded glass curtain wall that enclosing the building’s main entry on the eastern façade.

The transparency of the curtain wall serves as a metaphor for openness and accountability in the state’s judicial system. The diamond-shaped Judge Roger Cisneros Jury Assembly Room completes the building’s east façade.

LEED Gold certification for the Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse is anticipated. This energy efficient building includes two green roofs, the use of environmentally friendly finishes, recycled and locally harvested materials, and optimized energy performance of electrical and mechanical systems.

112

Owner

City and County of Denver Denver, Colorado Architect of Record Klipp Denver, Colorado Partner or Joint Venture RicciGreene Associates New York, New York Harold Massop Associates Architects Denver, Colorado Landscape Architect studioINSITE Denver, Colorado Civil Engineer Harris Kocher Smith Denver, Colorado Structural Engineer S. A. Miro, Inc. Denver, Colorado Mechanical Engineer Hadji and Associates, Inc. Denver, Colorado Electrical Engineer Sorcar Engineering, Inc. Arvada, Colorodo General Contractor Hensel Phelps Construction Co. Greeley, Colorado Photographer Frank Ooms Photography Completion Date: 2010 Construction Cost: $ 128.0 million Number of Courtrooms: 35 Type of Court: Criminal, Juvenile, Drug Building Area: 317,000 BGSF; 212,000 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Construction Management Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Gold

113

Lorain County Justice Center • Elyria, Ohio The Lorain County Justice Center’s commitment to downtown Elyria impacts the economic and social base of the county providing residents with services in one unified, secure, and convenient location. The facility consolidates multiple courts, judges, clerks, and support spaces simplifying the legal process and improves operational efficiency.

The seven-story building contains high-traffic functions on the lower floors with three court floors above.

The secure lobby area, a grand double-height space, provides space for queuing visitors. Separate circulation is provided behind the courtrooms for judges, jurors, and court staff. A shared holding area for detainees is provided for each pair of courtrooms with central holding facilities for adults and juveniles located in the basement.

The building also includes a separate parking area for judges and a vehicle sally port for receiving prisoners.

In addition to optimizing the layout for major building functions, the design addresses the challenge of relating the building’s architecture and mass to the surrounding historic community. The design interprets the scale of the town square and reflects its character through the primary building materials. The steel structure includes a masonry veneer with an Amherst sandstone and glass curtain wall. Similar materials are found on the historic courthouse, churches, and other public buildings in Lorain County.

Blending, patterning, and texturing of the various tones of brick based on the hue of the stone create a unified look reducing the building’s visual mass.

The Justice Center projects a positive image for the county and city. The entrance is inviting and

114

is raised on a plinth above the street level with steps, planters, and benches. For special events, the two-story lobby is used as a reception area that opens onto the plaza. Wide public corridors angle toward the square and extensive

window glazing provides abundant natural light into the space and provides views to the outside for the public and staff. Wide corridors and a grand staircase in the building’s base are designed to welcome the public into the space.

Owner

Lorain County Board of Commissioners Elyria, Ohio Architect of Record Bostwick Design Partnership Cleveland, Ohio Partner or Joint Venture HOK St. Louis, Missouri Landscape Architect HOK St. Louis, Missouri Civil Engineer KS Associates Elyria, Ohio Structural Engineer Barber & Hoffman Cleveland, Ohio Mechanical Engineer Korda Nemeth Engineering Columbus, Ohio Security Engineer Kroll Security Group Bastrop, Texas General Contractor RP Carbone Company Cleveland, Ohio Photographer David Joseph Photography New York, New York Completion Date: 2004 Construction Cost: $ 30.7 million Number of Courtrooms: 10 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Probate Building Area: 225,905 BGSF; 161,856 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Construction Management Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

115

Loudoun County Courthouse • Leesburg, Virginia The Commonwealth’s Assembly designated a site for the Loudon County Courthouse at the crossroads of two primary roads in 1758.

The town and its courthouse subsequently played historic roles in the formation and development of this nation. The new renovation and addition expands the courthouse by 90,340 square feet of new construction and renovates 60,035 square feet of existing space.

The incorporation of five existing buildings on the courthouse site into a single secure environment will serve the public, the Judiciary, and the Court staff for the next two decades.

Ten new courtrooms are added consolidating three jurisdictions into a single facility. The emphasis in the design on wayfinding, orientation, clarity of public circulation systems, and adequate public space responds to an ever- increasing volume of

public visitors and self-represented litigants. The introduction of natural light makes the court spaces less stressful and more conducive to successful completion of tasks.

A focal point of the courthouse green is the one-room Courthouse built in 1884. The addition reinterprets historical themes embodied in the rhythm, massing, and rich articulation of detail in the historic structure.

Careful attention to the pedestrian scale and use of complementary materials enhances the civic presence of the site, establishing an architectural dialogue across time.

Provisions were made for the continued expansion of courtroom and work processing technology serving the justice system (e.g., video arraignment and remote appearance, digital evidence display, and case management, etc.) to ensure that the courthouse remains flexible and fully functional for many years.

116

Owner

Photographer Robert Lautman Photography Washington, DC

Architect of Record HDR Architecture, Inc. Alexandria, Virginia

Completion Date: 2001

Loudoun County Leesburg, Virginia

Design Architect Kallmann McKinnell & Wood Architects Boston, Massachusetts

Number of Courtrooms: 10 Construction Cost: $20.0 million Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Traffic

Civil Engineer Patton Harris Rust and Associates Chantilly, Virginia

Building Area: New - 90,340 GSF; 66,427 NAA, Renovation - 60,035 GSF; 47,271 NAA

Structural and Mechanical Engineer HDR Architecture, Inc. Alexandria, Virginia

Financing Method: FY 1998 Personal Property Tax

General Contractor Tompkins Builders Washington, DC

Type of Construction: Addition, Renovation

Delivery Method: Single Prime Contract

LEED Certification: None

117

Mammoth Lakes Courthouse • Mammoth Lakes, California The Mammoth Lake Courthouse is located at the entrance to the Town of Mammoth Lakes and is the first phase of a larger Government Center complex. A new aspen grove directly in front of the courthouse provides a natural buffer and security setback between the building and the parking lot and offers a pleasing outdoor space shading the eastern glass lobby in the summer while allowing sun and desirable heat gain during the winter.

Expressing the dignity of the court and distinguishing it from the residential and commercial buildings in town, the courthouse is a simple but articulated form composed of three flat roofed elements clearly delineated by function: a two-story public circulation spine, a two-story main core, and a one-story support structure. The glass-clad circulation spine is wedge-shaped and extends the length of the eastern façade. The widest end of the wedge houses the prominent public entry on the first floor and frames spectacular views of the surrounding mountains on the second floor. The pointed north end of the spine provides a public presence along Main Street.

The main core is a rectangular form housing the public counters, staff offices, and multi-purpose room on the first floor and the chambers, courtrooms, and holding on the second floor. As it is expected that more criminal matters will be heard in the new Mammoth Lakes Courthouse, the two courtrooms are in-custody and jury capable and the holding area between can accommodate juveniles and adults. A shared staff/in-custody elevator has controls allowing it to be used by the staff except when the Sheriff overrides the controls for in-custody use.

118

The L-shaped support structure extending along the west façade houses mechanical equipment, judicial parking, and the sally port.

To accommodate future growth, space for an additional court set is identified on the north side of the building.

Owner

Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts Sacramento, California Architect of Record Mark Cavagnero Associates San Francisco, California Landscape Architect EDAW San Francisco, California Civil Engineer Triad / Holmes Associates Mammoth Lakes, California

Structural Engineer Forrell / Elsesser Engineers, Inc. San Francisco, California Mechanical Engineer Gayner Engineers San Francisco, California Court Programming Carter Goble Lee Columbia, South Carolina Lighting Design Auerbach Glasow French San Francisco, California General Contractor Sundt Sacramento, California

Completion Date: 2011 Construction Cost: $ 14.35 million Number of Courtrooms: 2 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Traffic, Small Claims, Drug, Probate Building Area: 23,300 BGSF; 14,200 NAA Finance Method: State Funded Delivery Method: CM at Risk Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

119

Manatee County Judicial Center • Bradenton, Florida The historic Manatee County courthouse was renovated along with a new nine-story building honoring the community’s commitment to the judicial system. The 255,000 square foot addition connects the existing jail and Sheriff’s office building and creates an improved and prominent entrance for the Center.

The Manatee County Judicial Center includes 19 courtrooms and five hearing rooms. Judges and Court Administration are housed on a collegial floor at the top of the building. Shared courtrooms are designed for specific functions with specific courts for Criminal and Civil, Family and Teen, Drug and Probate; 10 of which have direct access to incustody holding. Space in the vacated jail and Sheriff’s building have been renovated and are reused to support the courts or left as shell space to accommodate future growth.

Great efforts were taken to create a welcoming entrance from the new park and re-energize the pedestrian experience. A large 29 foot high entry lobby lined with glass creates an inviting image from the outside and faces the colonnades of the adjacent historic courthouse. The Center complements the historic building and completes a centralized public square between the two buildings. In addition, a ground floor law library wrapped in a curved glass wall is pulled back under the building’s corner providing a pedestrian-friendly scale to the base of the tower.

With its selection of this site, the county reinforces its commitment to downtown Bradenton and the restoration of the city’s civic center.

The site allowed the restoration and renovation of the landmark 1913 courthouse, re-purposing of the outmoded 1980s offices and jail, and the insertion of a courthouse tower into the city block.

120

Owner

Manatee County Bradenton, Florida

Partner or Joint Venture Fawley Bryant Architects, Inc. Bradenton, Florida

Civil Engineer Wilson Miller, Inc. Sarasota, Florida

Architect of Record HOK Tampa, Florida

Landscape Architect John Moody & Associates, Inc. Bradenton, Florida

Structural Engineer Walter P. Moore & Associates, Inc. Tampa, Florida Mechanical Engineer TLC Engineering for Architecture Tampa, Florida Associate Structural Engineer Chris Walker, PE Bradenton, Florida Environmental Engineer MACTEC Engineering & Consulting Tampa, Florida Cost Estimator Faithful & Gould Maitland, Florida General Contractor Balfour Beatty Construction Orlando, Florida Photographer Chroma, Inc. Tampa, Florida Completion Date: 2008 Construction Cost: $ 68.1 million Number of Courtrooms: 19 Courtrooms, 5 Hearing Rooms Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Drug, Small Claims, Traffic, Probate Building Area: New - 255,000 BGSF; 152,000 NAA, Renovation - 26,000 BGSF Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: New, Renovation LEED Certificate: Designed to LEED but not submitted

121

Maricopa County Courts Project • Phoenix, Arizona In 2007, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors made a strategic decision to address the County’s growing backlog of criminal cases in the courts by building a new criminal courthouse in downtown Phoenix. Upon opening in 2012, the Maricopa County Courts building will have space for 32 new courtrooms: eight Regional Court Center/Early Disposition Courts, four Initial Pretrial Courts, four large Ceremonial Courts, and six standard Criminal Courts (10 courtroom spaces will be shelled for future build out). Other key programmatic components shared among the county campus include the jury assembly for the entire court complex, secure judicial parking, sally port and incustody holding, collegial judicial chambers, and special waiting areas for victims and witnesses.

The Court Tower has been designed to care for victims as well as defendants, lawyers, and judges.

Acknowledging the extremely stressful nature of visitors’ experiences throughout the judicial process, the design focused on the creation of calming, therapeutic environments. At the fore-front of the design process, the team concentrated on the creation of more visible and identifiable entrances, incorporating daylight and views, and specifying natural materials for the creation of more calming safe places that are still dignified and permanent.

The building works with the urban fabric of the city at multiple levels.

At the city scale, a plaza was created to the north of the new building embracing the city’s idea of joining to the connected oasis which links larger scale and intimate public shaded spaces throughout the city.

At the campus scale, the pedestrian approach from Madison Street creates a gateway to the campus

122

and courthouse. Inspirational and educational timelines marked in the pavement and inspirational art walls placed within the building

allow the public to visualize and understand the workings of the judicial system through the site and building.

Owner Maricopa County Phoenix, Arizona Architect of Record Gould Evans + AECOM Phoenix, Arizona Program Manager Parsons / HDR Phoenix, Arizona

Structural Engineer Paragon Structural Design, Inc. Phoenix, Arizona

General Contractor Gilbane / Ryan Phoenix, Arizona

Mechanical Engineer Syska Hennessy San Diego, California

Completion Date: 2012

Audio Visual / Acoustical Mckay Conant Hoover Scottsdale, Arizona

Landscape Architect Ten Eyck Landscape Architects Phoenix, Arizona

Lighting Candela Seattle, Washington

Civil Engineer Kland Civil Engineers Scottsdale, Arizona

Security Systems Buford Goff & Associates, Inc. Columbia, South Carolina

Construction Cost: $ 258.6 million Number of Courtrooms: 32 Type of Court: Criminal Building Area: 694,892 BGSF; 603,861 NAA Finance Method: County Funded Delivery Method: Construction Management Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Silver

123

CITATION

Mecklenburg County Courthouse • Charlotte, North Carolina The new 542,000-square-foot Mecklenburg County Courthouse consolidates judicial activities previously located in four separate facilities. Faced with continued population growth and space shortages, the County recognized the need for expansion. Despite the challenge of fitting an extremely large program onto a very tight site, the new courthouse has become a focal point and gateway to the City’s center and focuses on the needs of the people to be served. The façade incorporates local materials crafted to reflect both classical and contemporary details; the appropriate use of scale and massing honors the city’s heritage while reflecting its vision to the future.

The courthouse meets post-9/11 federal security standards for courts facilities including increased security measures for personnel and vehicles, truck barriers, laminated glass, and hardened exterior walls. Two separate areas provide x-ray parcel/package inspections and walk-through weapons detection. Both areas have egress-only optical turnstiles for efficiency. Two integrated control centers utilize touch screen graphic panels to provide control for inmate movement and building operations.

Integrated courtroom technology spans local and wide area networks fully integrating VCR, DVD, laser disc, document viewers, audio, and video monitors and projectors into a single, user-friendly operating system.

By locating family courtrooms on a single floor, the family court functions as a court-within-acourt. The courtroom design was customized to service specific case types. Variations in the size, bench layout, spectator seating, and number of entries are incorporated into Juvenile, Child Support, and Domestic Violence court sets.

Differences from other courtrooms include an increased number of counsel tables to accommodate the greater number of participants in family cases. The height of the judge’s bench is reduced creating a less foreboding environment for the child while maintaining the dignity of the court.

Jury Comment

Additionally, a unique Public Art Commission reinforces the important conc ept that justice rises from - and serves - the people. A kinetic sculpture by Ralph Helmick and Stuart Schechter features about 3,200 tiny portraits hanging on cables from the ceiling. Made from scans of local community faces, the portraits reflect the ethnic, age, and gender makeup of the community’s citizens as reported in the 2000 Census.

124

From the jury’s perspective, the Mecklenburg County Courthouse reflects design excellence in contextual site integration, exterior form, and high capacity functionality.

The unique triangular footprint optimizes the use of a limited parcel

of land and adjacency to existing county government facilities while creating a park-like urban plaza area.

Public access and transparency are achieved through a clearly delineated street level building entry and a spacious atrium with overlooking balcony spaces and expansive windows. Natural light and open views to the outside dynamically converge to establish an inviting, human-scale space for the public and court personnel. The high degree of openness is remarkable given the security requirements and setback constraints of the building site.

Extensive programming and stakeholder involvement are evident by the co-location of court services previously housed in four separate facilities, process re-engineering of the high volume courts, and specially designed family courtrooms. Public movement within the facility is further supported by open escalators and wayfinding references to the atrium featuring an intriguing kinetic sculpture.

125

Owner

Mecklenburg County Charlotte, North Carolina Architect of Record – Tri- Venture HDR Architecture, Inc. Alexandria, Virginia Kallmann McKinnell & Wood Architects Boston, Massachusetts Schenkel & Schultz Architects Fort Wayne, Indiana Landscape Architect Cole Jenest Stone Charlotte, North Carolina Civil Engineer Cole Jenest Stone Charlotte, North Carolina Structural / Mechanical Engineer HDR Architecture, Inc. Alexandria, Virginia

126

Acoustics Acentech Cambridge, Massachusetts FF&E / Signage 2H Design Charlotte, North Carolina General Contractor, Construction Managers Joint Venture Walter B. Davis Company Charlotte, North Carolina Turner Construction Charlotte, North Carolina BE&K Building Group Charlotte, North Carolina Photographer Gordon Schenck, Jr. Charlotte, North Carolina

Completion Date: 2007 Construction Cost: $ 115.5 million Number of Courtrooms: 48 (12 shelled for future) Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Drug, Traffic Building Area: 583,117 BGSF; 384,820 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds, Government Appropriation Delivery Method: Construction Management – Joint Venture Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

127

Montgomery County Judicial Center Annex • Rockville, Maryland As the seventh major courthouse project in the history of Montgomery County, the Montgomery County Judicial Center Annex will become the eastern anchor for a revitalized government center and a symbol of the courts’ important role in the community.

Sited at the intersection of East Jefferson Street and Maryland Avenue in downtown Rockville, this project involves the design of a 191,000-gross square foot new annex and renovation of the existing 327,000-gross square foot courthouse. Juvenile Court functions and other related Family Court functions will relocate to the annex, leaving vacant spaces in the existing judicial center available for re-use.

High volume space for Family Services, family clerks, and a children’s play area are on the first floor. The masters are located on the second floor with juvenile components on the third floor.

The fourth floor is shared by both juvenile and adult components while the fifth floor holds only adult components. Seven new courtrooms and associated spaces will be constructed with three courtrooms shelled for later completion for a total of 10 courtrooms in the annex.

Efficient use of space was achieved through the four-court-per-floor layout organized around a northsouth corridor facing the plaza and landscaped park. Each of the four sets of stacked courtrooms is given a unique figural expression as a powerful column or pillar.

Clad in a richly textured skin of copper with bronze and brass accents, the pillars are intended to provide a warm counterpoint to the crisp glass curtain walls and pre-cast panels of the remainder of the building. Each courtroom pillar is topped by glass lanterns

128

providing an elegant profile for the Rockville skyline.

The annex is slated to achieve a minimum of LEED-NC gold certification through energy

efficient and sustainable features including vegetative or green roofs, energy efficient mechanical systems, waterless urinals, use of regional materials, and environmentally friendly products.

Owner

Montgomery County Rockville, Maryland Architect of Record AECOM Arlington, Virginia Landscape Architect Mahan Rykiel Associates Baltimore, Maryland Civil Engineer Adtek Engineers, Inc. Frederick, Maryland Structural / Mechanical Engineer AECOM Arlington, Virginia Diversified Engineering Silver Spring, Maryland Courts Programmer Dan Wiley Associates Stuart, Florida General Contractor Not Yet Selected Completion Date: 2014 Construction Cost: $ 100.0 million Number of Courtrooms: 10 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Juvenile, Domestic Building Area: New - 213,024 BGSF, Renovation - 327,000 BGSF Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: Addition, Renovation LEED Certificate: None

129

19th Judicial District Courthouse • Baton Rouge, Louisiana Baton Rouge has experienced explosive population growth in recent years resulting in an overcrowded court system. It has also seen the resurgence of redevelopment in the downtown area with renovation of historic structures and construction of very contemporary buildings.

The new courthouse for the 19th Judicial District responds with an exterior that connects with its surroundings. The offices and secure areas of the building reflect the art deco detailing of the Capitol Complex while the public lobbies are expressed with large expanses of glass on the north elevation with contemporary detailing.

130

The 19th Judicial District Courthouse is located in downtown Baton Rouge nine blocks south of the State Capitol.

The unique site location permits the new Courthouse to be the only building in Baton Rouge with views to the State Capitol directly along its central axis.

The building has a two-story architectural base breaking down the mass of the building at street level and helps relate in scale to the historic two-story buildings across the street. The first two floors are organized to provide efficient access to the two areas of the courthouse with the greatest amount of use. Access to the Jury Assembly area is on

the first floor directly adjacent to the main lobby. The Traffic Court on the second floor handles the largest volume of people daily and is accessed by escalators to provide efficient movement of the public to and from that area.

The upper floors of the building contain four courtrooms per floor organized to reflect the clear separation of the public, secure, and restricted circulation patterns. Although this is a Parrish Courthouse, the design of the internal circulation and the security of the building are modeled after Federal requirements. Secure parking for judges is provided below the building.

Owner

19th Judicial District Courts Baton Rouge, Louisiana Architect of Record Post Architects Baton Rouge, Louisiana Partner or Joint Venture KPS Group, Inc. Birmingham, Alabama Landscape Architect McKnight Landscape Architects Baton Rouge, Louisiana Civil Engineer CSRS, Inc. Baton Rouge, Louisiana Structural Engineer McKee & DeVille Consulting Engineers, Inc. Baton Rouge, Louisiana Mechanical Engineer Assaf Simoneaux Tauzin & Associates, Inc. Baton Rouge, Louisiana Audio Visual / Security N.B. Traylor & Associates, Inc. Baton Rouge, Louisiana Lighting CRS Engineering, Inc. Birmingham, Alabama General Contractor Walton Construction Company, LLC Baton Rouge, Louisiana Completion Date: 2010 Construction Cost: $ 95.0 million Number of Courtrooms: 27 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Drug, Traffic Building Area: 349,576 BGSF Finance Method: Revenue Bonds Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

131

Norfolk Consolidated Courts Complex • Norfolk, Virginia Home to the world’s largest Naval Base and the North American Headquarters for NATO, the seaport of Norfolk has a rich history with recent dramatic urban revitalization. To address its long standing need for improved court facilities, the City decided to consolidate the Norfolk Circuit Court, General District Court, and Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court into a single facility. The new Consolidated Courts Complex is a cornerstone building among civic landmarks anchoring and defining the City of Norfolk complementing the axial relationship to the existing City Hall and Public District buildings.

The building’s construction was logistically challenging, requiring well-orchestrated staging that allowed the existing General District Court building to remain operational during construction.

Additionally, several urban design parameters constrained the site’s development while another challenge was for the building to embody significant prominence in a key area of Norfolk’s central business district.

The design solution was to plan three phases of construction and occupancy; accommodating departments temporarily in completed sections while waiting further construction. A light rail system bisecting the site was transformed into an amenity rather than a constraint making the system an organizing feature to a new civic plaza. Respecting the building’s contribution to the city’s character, designers developed the massing plan in relationship to the adjacent buildings’ proportions.

The 315,195 square foot Complex’s landmark feature is a columnar rotunda that rises

132

above and unifies the wings of the building. Modern construction techniques, along with materials of stone, metal, and glass, created an articulation to the building’s façade expressing solidity and

permanence. Glazing systems promote understanding of the courthouse as a place for the people and symbolically represent the transparency and openness of the judicial system.

Owner

City of Norfolk Norfolk, Virginia Architect of Record Fentress Architects Denver, Colorado Landscape Architect Rhodeside & Harwell Alexandria, Virginia Civil / Mechanical Engineer Clark Nexsen Norfolk, Virginia Structural Engineer Thornton Tomasetti Acoustics / Audio Visual Acoustical Design Collaborative, Ltd. Ruxton, Maryland Audio Visual Engineer David L. Adams Associates Denver, Colorado General Contractor Not Yet Selected Completion Date: 2014 Construction Cost: $120.0 million Number of Courtrooms: 24 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Drug, Traffic, Probate Building Area: 315,195 BGSF; 199,497 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Silver

133

Northampton County Government Center • Easton, Pennsylvania Operating with court facilities that were functionally inadequate, overcrowded, and below modern security standards, Northampton County decided it needed to renovate the existing historic 1820s courthouse and build a major 10 courtroom addition. Issues faced with locating the new building on the Government Center site meant the loss of existing parking and designing within significant site constraints.

The Northampton County Government Center, however, provided an opportunity to remedy the haphazard campus development of the last 30 years by creating a new focal point for the site, harmonize the new architecture with the existing 1820s courthouse and 1970s annex, and create a street wall that is contextual with the 19th and early 20th Century buildings surrounding the site in this historic city.

The new 235,000 square foot courthouse provides 10 new courtrooms and chambers meeting modern standards for security, circulation, technology, and functional adequacy.

The historic courtrooms and most of the remaining existing space have been reconfigured to meet modern standards and provide for efficient complex-wide operations. The program provides for nearterm projected space needs with a scheme allowing for displacement of office space to add additional courtrooms in the future.

134

Owner

Northampton County Easton, Pennsylvania Architect of Record RicciGreene Associates New York, New York Landscape Architect Mathews Nielsen New York, New York Civil / Structural / Mechanical Engineer Brinjac Engineering Harrisburg and Allentown, Pennsylvania Lighting, Fire Protection, Security / AV, Telecomm / Data Brinjac Engineering Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Cost Estimator Hanscomb, Inc. New York, New York Construction Manager Alvin H. Butz, Inc. Allentown, Pennsylvania Photographer Bjorg Magnea Architectural & Interior Photography New York, New York RicciGreene Associates New York, New York Completion Date: 2007 Number of Courtrooms: 11 Total Project Cost: $42.0 million Type of Court: Criminal, Civil Building Area: New - 72,000 GSF, Renovation - 167,000 GSF Financing Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Single Prime Contract Type of Construction: Addition, Renovation LEED Certification: None

135

Onondaga County / City of Syracuse Courthouse • Syracuse, New York The new 120,000 square foot County/ City Criminal Courthouse provides state-of-the-art security, technology, and functional capabilities for the judicial system. The design approach organized the 12 new courtrooms in a compact block largely obscured from view by existing buildings and placed the glass-clad entrance pavilion, public stairs, and elevator in a prominent location at the axial terminus of the civic plaza.

This bold statement announces the public nature of the building and symbolizes the transparency of the judicial process.

The new courthouse was built on the site of a former parking garage and houses the Criminal Courts for the city and county as well as the District Attorney’s office. The organizational approach stacks courtrooms above each other; thus sharing prisoner facilities and achieving economical structure. This approach allowed for

136

lateral expansion to accommodate future growth for the courts.

The existing courthouse was renovated after the completion of the new building and houses the Supreme Court, Surrogate Court,

and Family Court. The layout reused spaces for new and existing functions and satisfied all historic preservation requirements. The new courthouse completed the edge of a significant civic plaza which extends to the museum and Convention Center.

Owner

County of Onondaga Syracuse, New York Architect of Record Ashley McGraw Architects, P.C. Syracuse, New York Planning & Design RicciGreene Associates New York, New York Landscape Architect Appel Osborne Landscape Architecture Syracuse, New York Structural Engineer Klepper, Hahn & Hyatt East Syracuse, New York Mechanical Engineer Robson Woese, Inc. Syracuse, New York Environmental Engineer C& S Engineers, Inc. Syracuse, New York Construction Manager JD Taylor Construction Corp.

Syracuse, New York Completion Date: 2003 Construction Cost: $ 18.5 million Number of Courtrooms: 12 Type of Court: Criminal, Traffic Building Area: 140,300 BGSF; 89,900 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

137

Osceola County Government Center • Kissimmee, Florida

Osceola County needed to expand its existing courthouse and adjacent administration building on a site featuring an historic courthouse that has suffered from injudicious renovations and a series of unfortunate annexes.

The campus master plan creates a strong government center that reestablishes the historic structure as the traditional courthouse on the green, while introducing a contemporary new justice building maintaining a sensitive response to the historic courthouse and surrounding neighborhood. The design for the Osceola County Government Center includes a new 247,000-square foot courthouse, a renovated 140,000-square foot administration building, and a restored 18,000-square foot historic courthouse. The new courthouse and administration building reflect the historic building’s traditional architecture with careful attention to the pedestrian scale and entry porticos of each building; and complementary building materials, fenestration patterns, building massing, and detailing work with the historic building forming a unified campus surrounding the civic green space.

138

The driving force in the functional layout of the new courthouse is the operational efficiency of the courts. On the typical court floors, three pairs of courtrooms, served by common secure cores, vertical circulation and support spaces, dictate the floor plate. The pooled judges’ chambers on the sixth level are volumetrically more efficient than distributing the chambers on lower court floors, which have greater floor-to-floor heights.

Furthermore, the collegial chambers

allowed for shared support services and spaces.

The engineering systems promote operational efficiency and a new central energy plant located adjacent to the courthouse supplies chilled water to the new facility and the historic courthouse. In addition to reducing noise and unsightly equipment, the centralized chillers and cooling towers operate more efficiently than individual equipment at each facility.

Owner

Osceola County Board of Commissioners Kissimmee, Florida Architect of Record Heery International (Formerly HLM) Orlando, Florida Civil Engineer Johnston Engineers, Inc. Kissimmee, Florida Structural / Mechanical / Electrical Engineer Heery International (Formerly HLM) Orlando, Florida

Court Programming Omni Group, Inc. Los Angeles, California Audiovisual Newcomb and Boyd Atlanta, Georgia General Contractor Centex Rooney / Grey Construction Orlando, Florida Photographer Gary Knight and Associates, Inc.

Completion Date: 2001 Construction Cost: $ 36.8 million Number of Courtrooms: 12 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Traffic Building Area: 247,000 BGSF Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Construction Management Type of Construction: New, Renovation LEED Certificate: None

139

Penobscot Judicial Center • Bangor, Maine The new Penobscot Judicial Center replaces an historic but dysfunctional two-courtroom courthouse in downtown Bangor, Maine. The program required accommodating courtrooms for the Supreme, District, and Family Court functions as well as a consolidated clerk’s office, security, Supreme Court judges’ suite, chambers for District judges, and multipurpose spaces for arbitration and alternative dispute resolution.

The new unified 90,000 GSF building has seven courtrooms including an active arraignment court on the first floor, jury trial courtrooms on the second floor, and quieter family courtrooms on the third floor. Security includes point of entry screening, detainee holding at a central cell block and at each courtroom floor, a sally port, and secure parking under the building for approximately 50 cars. The courthouse was designed to be adaptable or added onto with multiple areas for alternative dispute resolution and bays for the

140

future build-out of courtrooms.

This is the first courthouse in Maine where the Supreme Court, District Court, Criminal and Civil Court are combined.

The design concept reinforces this area of the city and its connection to the existing historic downtown by re-establishing the street edge,

and marking the entry facing downtown with a cylindrical tower. Materials and massing relate to the context of the city while establishing the courthouse as a new civic landmark for the 21st Century. The building incorporates the work of local artists with both rural and urban images as well as parts of legal texts.

Owner

Maine Bureau of General Services Portland, Maine

Landscape Architect Michael Boucher Landscape Architecture Freeport, Maine

Mechanical Engineer Cosentini Associates Cambridge, Massachusetts

Architect of Record Leers Weinzapfel Associates Architects, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts

Civil / Structural Engineer WBRC Architects and Engineers Bangor, Maine

Lighting Designer Lam Partners Cambridge, Massachusetts Acoustics Cavanaugh Tocci Associates Sudbury, Massachusetts Construction Manager Consigli Construction Portland, Maine Photographer Peter Vanderwarker West Newton, Massachusetts Completion Date: 2009 Construction Cost: $ 29.8 million Number of Courtrooms: 7 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Drug, Small Claims, Traffic, Probate Building Area: 101,481 BGSF; 27,825 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Construction Management Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Designed to LEED but not submitted

141

Plymouth Trial Court • Plymouth, Massachusetts The new Plymouth Trial Court is an 189,150 square foot facility consisting of 10 courtrooms, related support and transaction spaces, law library, District Attorney’s Offices, jury pool, and a drop-in child care center. The building was designed to combine all five Massachusetts Trial Court departments into a single facility to benefit from the efficiencies of colocation, shared support, and for convenience to the public.

The courthouse is contextually sensitive to its important historical surroundings including the public library and Cordage Park. The language and palette of materials developed for the project is respectful of the local tradition, but also suitable for modern construction methods and sustainability while maintaining a strong civic presence.

The entrance is marked by the large volume anchored with the solid, rectangular stone-faced column at the front. The large, light-filled entry vestibule signifies arrival at a civic destination and shelters waiting visitors as they pass through the security station and into the main lobby.

Two distinct volumes are centered on the atrium acting as a landmark and orienting locus for court users.

142

The three levels of separate and secure circulation for the judges/ staff, detainees, and the public are achieved through an integrated vertical and horizontal organization and arrangement of public-to-private areas. Abundant natural light is provided in the public circulation spaces and all courtrooms, open office areas, and significant spaces through the elegantly scaled fenestration. The central sculptural stair and balcony railings are transparent; enhancing visibility for security and wayfinding and allowing the light to penetrate deep into the building.

The building is equipped with many sustainable features including sophisticated digital controls for heating, ventilating, and air conditioning allowing for optimal performance and energy savings.

There are several energy saving devices throughout the facility including variable frequency drives on motors, cooling tower waste water treatment reduction system, high efficiency chiller, occupancy sensors and daylight dimmers on lighting, high reflectance roof (to minimize heat gain), low-e glazing, and operable windows.

Owner

Division of Capital Asset Management Commonwealth of Massachusetts Boston, Massachusetts

Architect of Record Perry Dean Rogers | Partners Architects Boston, Massachusetts

Landscape Architect Brown, Richardson & Rowe, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts Civil Engineer Judith Nitsch Engineering, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts Structural Engineer Lim Consultants Cambridge, Massachusetts Mechanical Engineer TMP Consulting Engineers, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts Lighting Designer LAM Partners, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts Acoustics Acentech, Inc. Cambridge, Massachusetts Cost Estimator Daedalus Projects, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts Security Applied Risk Management Stoneham, Massachusetts General Contractor Gilbane Building Company Boston, Massachusetts Photographer Richard Mandelkorn Photography Completion Date: 2007 Construction Cost: $ 58.5 million Number of Courtrooms: 10 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Juvenile, Domestic, Small Claims, Traffic, Probate Building Area: 189,154 BGSF; 123,580 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Construction Management Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

143

CITATION

Richard E. Arnason Justice Center • Pittsburg, California The Richard E. Arnason Justice Center is a highly advanced, fullservice regional courthouse serving as a catalyst for renewal of a modest suburban city. Located in the County’s Civic Center, it is situated at the gateway to the central business district serving those arriving from the nearby rapid transit center or the adjacent highway. The building faces a newly improved tree lined boulevard bordering the east end of the courthouse.

The design incorporates all principles of advanced courthouse planning.

The three-level, 71,600 square foot facility is the pilot project for implementation of California’s new Trial Court Facilities Standards. The courthouse provides Traffic, Family, Criminal, Trial, and Arraignment courtrooms. Currently programmed with seven courtrooms, it is designed for future expansion to 10. All courtrooms employ advanced technologies and receive abundant natural light from windows and/or light monitors.

The jury assembly and entry lobby portion of the project is uniquely designed to remain secure from the other portions of the building by a series of roll down grilles. This allows flexibility of use after hours by various community organizations. A public Self-Help Center is also provided and the facility is designed for Universal Accessibility that exceeds the typical requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Secure judges’ parking is separated from both public parking and secure staff parking.

The facility’s goal provides a contemporary, yet enduring civic edifice that is easily recognizable as a courthouse. The courthouse square connecting the entry with public areas is landscaped with native plants and trees, decomposed granite, and gradual steps and ramps up to the elevated building entry. The primary

144

building materials are limestone, precast concrete, and glass. The project is anticipated to receive LEED Silver certification.

Jury Comment The seven-courtroom, 71,000 square foot regional courthouse for the Superior Court of California was one of the first full-service court buildings planned in the large capital outlay program of the State Judicial Branch currently underway and continuing in the years ahead. The Richard E. Arnason Justice Center was planned as a multi-purpose, incustody, and jury capable courthouse.

The two-story building is sited on former public land in the civic core of the local jurisdiction and replaces a deficient, four-courtroom structure on the same site which will be demolished when the new building is complete in late 2010.

The overall functional and aesthetic layout reflects a clear linear organization of stacked courtrooms utilizing the most current standards for courthouse design described in the California Trial Court Design Standards. A separate, one-story jury assembly place adjacent and connected to the lobby is organized and planned to be used as an independent space when the courthouse is closed.

The building site and mass is next to a major highway and train line, consistent with the visibility and accessibility to the public that is desirable for a court. The economical and long-lasting exterior with precast curtain wall and stone, projects the image of an enduring and serious public place. Organized and planned for maintainability and optimal cost of ownership over the long term, the building will be certified LEED Silver.

145

146

Owner

Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts Sacramento, California Architect of Record HOK San Francisco, California Landscape Architect HOK San Francisco, California

Civil Engineer BKF Engineers Redwood City, California

Telecom / Security / AV / Acoustical Smith, Fause McDonald, Inc. San Francisco, California

Structural Engineer Middlebrook + Louie, Structural Engineers San Francisco, California

Lighting Design Horton Lees Brogden San Francisco, California

Mechanical Engineer HOK San Francisco, California

General Contractor Sundt Construction, Inc. Sacramento, California Photographer HOK San Francisco, California Completion Date: 2010 Construction Cost: $ 35.7 million Number of Courtrooms: 7 (future expansion to 10) Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Traffic Building Area: 71,500 BGSF; 54,000 NAA Finance Method: Court Fees, State Funded Delivery Method: CM at Risk Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Silver

147

Richard J. Daronco Westchester County Courthouse • White Plains, New York Replacing a wind-swept plaza at the base of an existing courts tower, the new Criminal and Family Court Annex embraces an outdoor garden that has become the emblematic public space of complex greeting visitors and providing a focus for the encompassing public circulation galleries. Vertical public circulation for the Criminal Court is dramatized by its insertion into the garden, while the stair for the Family Court is filled with natural light and offers views out into the civic center.

Housed in this facility are the County Courts, Family Court, and the Department of Probation providing much needed courtroom facilities and enhanced security for judges, jurors, litigants, staff, and the public. The secure circulation surrounding the array of courtrooms is allowed to project through the outer layer of judges’ chambers and jury deliberation rooms making lanterns of light and small gathering places.

148

The courtroom entrances are arcuated giving material substance to the building fabric and introducing the visiting public to the special purpose to which these spaces are devoted. The courtrooms

are balanced, serene, and filled with diffused light reflected off vaulted ceilings. Carefully proportioned and detailed, they embody the courts’ fundamental commitment to due process and balanced judgment.

Owner

Dormitory Authority of the State of New York

Mechanical Engineer Cosentini Associates / One Lux Studio New York, New York

Architect of Record Pei Cobb Freed & Partners Architects, LLP New York, New York

Court Programming Ricci Greene Associates, Inc. New York, New York

Associate Architect Fuller and D’Angelo, P.C. Elmsford, New York

General Contractor Plaza Construction Corporation New York, New York

Landscape Architect Pei Cobb Freed & Partners Architects, LLP New York, New York

Photographer Paul Warchol Photography, Inc. New York, New York

Structural Engineer WSP Cantor Seinuk New York, New York

Completion Date: 2005 Construction Cost: $ 77.0 million

Number of Courtrooms: 7 Family, 14 Criminal, 1 Ceremonial Courtroom Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Drug Building Area: New - 255,000 BGSF, Renovated - 380,000 BGSF, Total - 635,000 BGSF Finance Method: Dormitory Authority, State of NY / Bond Delivery Method: Multiple Prime Contract, Construction Manager Type of Construction: New, Addition LEED Certificate: Certified

149

Richmond County Judicial Center • Rockingham, North Carolina The new Richmond County Judicial Center is the initial component of the county’s master plan for court and jail needs. Located in the center of downtown Rockingham, the Judicial Center is built on a prominent corner site designed to complement the historic courthouse and provide a strong anchor to the edge of downtown. Emphases on the use of local materials reflect the community’s significant and longestablished brick manufacturing industry. The building is designed to serve the projected needs of the court through 2021 and accommodate future expansion.

and District Courts, judicial chambers, Clerk of Court, grand jury, jury assembly, District Attorney, and holding space for up to 50 in-custody accused. The building provides six courtrooms, ranging in size from 40 seats for Family Court to 250 seats for District Court, hearing rooms for mediation, Clerk of Court, and Guardian ad Litem.

Attorney conference areas are adjacent to courtrooms. The Judicial Center provides video arraignment as well as video conferencing capabilities for remote testimony from within the building and from remote facilities.

The five-story 70,000 square foot Judicial Center houses the Superior

All public functions are limited to the east side of the building.

150

Through this planning, there is limited interaction of the public with court staff to courtrooms and other placed interface areas while the glass-fronted lobby provides a visual connection to the historical courthouse. High-volume functions, including Clerk of Court and Traffic Court, are located on lower levels while court offices are placed on higher floors.

The District Attorney’s office planned a staging room for the recreation of crime scenes to aid in prosecution case development. The room provides space for the physical re-creation of crime scenes, as well as the use of smoke media and lasers to study ballistic patterns.

Owner

Richmond County Rockingham, North Carolina Architect of Record Ware Bonsall Architects Charlotte, North Carolina Landscape Architect AECOM Services of NC, Inc. Charlotte, North Carolina Civil / Structural / Mechanical Engineer AECOM Services of NC, Inc. Charlotte, North Carolina Courts Programmer / Consultant Don Hardenbergh Court Works Williamsburg, Virginia Interior Design Manning Design Group Garner, North Carolina Video System Design CU Video Systems, Inc. Virginia Beach, Virginia General Contractor Bordeaux Construction Company, Inc. Durham, North Carolina Photographer Tim Buchman Charlotte, North Carolina Completion Date: 2010 Construction Cost: $ 14.5 million Number of Courtrooms: 6 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Juvenile, Domestic, Small Claims, Probate Building Area: 70,114 BGSF; 56,206 NAA Finance Method: Commercial Bank Loan Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

151

Robertson County Justice Center • Mt. Olivet, Kentucky

Established in 1867, Robertson County has a population of approximately 2,200 and is one of Kentucky’s smallest counties in area of about 100 square miles. For the historic Robertson County Judicial Center in Mt. Olivet, Kentucky, the design goal was for the existing twostory courthouse with a footprint of 3,800 square feet, remain as the focal point of the site after designing and constructing an addition that is nearly three times larger at 11,000 square feet.

The existing courthouse’s steeply sloped site and structural renovation needs created unique challenges.

The solution was to build a onestory addition lowering the point of connection to the existing two-story structure, and using the volume of the new courtroom to balance the overall main elevation.

In the new addition, a 69-seat courtroom, judges’ chambers, and Circuit Court Clerk offices were provided, along with specialized areas for jury deliberation, defendant holding, security, and courtdesignated workers.

For the historic building, structural stabilization of the main wooden roof girders was necessary, as well as repair/replacement of the copper roof/gutters. Complete renovation of the existing historic courtroom was also required.

152

Owner

Robertson County Fiscal Court Mt. Olivet, Kentucky

Mechanical and Electrical Engineer AFA Lexington, Kentucky

Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Traffic, Small Claims, Drug, Probate

Architect of Record GRW Lexington, Kentucky

General Contractor Trace Creek Vanceburg, Kentucky

Building Area: New - 11,000 BGSF; 7,150 NAA, Renovation - 3,800 BGSF; 2,470 NAA

Civil Engineer Dyer Associates Alvaton, Kentucky

Photographer Walt Roycraft Photography Nicholasville, Kentucky

Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds

Structural Engineer Poage Engineers & Associates Lexington, Kentucky

Completion Date: 2009

Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build

Construction Cost: $ 3.0 million

Type of Construction: Addition, Renovation

Number of Courtrooms: 2

LEED Certificate: None

153

San Bernardino Courthouse • San Bernardino, California Situated at the intersection of San Bernardino’s County Government Center and the Downtown City Center, the New San Bernardino Courthouse serves as the nexus for the city’s political and economic development. The 361,000 square foot facility complements the adjacent historic courthouse and the leased court facility with a flexible, modern, and sustainable center for justice that will meet the future needs of the Superior Court for generations to come.

The project consists of two building elements: an 11-story courtroom tower visible on the skyline and a linear three-story podium that holds the street edge and steps down to the scale of the adjacent historic courthouse. These two masses sit within a shaded, planted plaza creating a public courtyard and extend to the adjacent Meadowbrook Park while providing a passive security setback. The building’s main entrance — a three-story public lobby — serves as the threshold between the openness of the city and the security of the court. A two-story volume containing the public administration program offices suspends within the space; its louvered wood skin adding warmth and richness to the predominantly stone and glassclad space. On the ground level, the jury assembly area provides the community with an open, flexible, and conveniently accessible space.

An adjacent cascading stair within a three-story atrium connects the ground level lobby to the high volume courtrooms, offices, and clerks’ spaces above.

While the low-scale, linear podium accommodates the Court’s publicserving offices, the building’s 35 courtrooms are stacked into an efficient 200 foot tower. Each tower level contains four courtrooms.

Public circulation occurs behind a glass façade on the north where

154

visitors and employees enjoy views of the green roof below, the historic court nearby, and the striking San Bernardino Mountains. Judges’ chambers and restricted offices are behind a secure, shaded façade on the south and enjoy views of the Box Spring Mountains. The courtrooms

and hearing rooms within the tower serve the Criminal, Traffic, Family Law, Probate, and Dependency divisions of the Superior Court.

The complex also features spaces for court administration, self-help, jury services, childcare, and sheriff’s operations.

Owner

Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts Sacramento, California Architect of Record Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP San Francisco, California

Landscape Architect Tom Leader Studio Courthouse Programmer Ricci Greene Associates New York, New York Civil Engineer Psomas Engineering

Structural / Mechanical Engineer Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP San Francisco, California Acoustical / Audiovisual / Telecom Shen, Milsom & Wilke, Inc. San Francisco, California Blast Engineering Weidlinger Associates, Inc. Mountain View, California Cost Consultant Davis Langdon Lighting Design Horton Lees Brogden Lighting Design Holding & Detention PSA-Dewberry, Inc. Security Kroll Security Group Sacramento, California General Contractor Rudolph and Sletten, Inc. Construction Manager Completion Date: 2013 Construction Cost: $ 284.0 million Number of Courtrooms: 35 Type of Court: Criminal, Domestic, Juvenile, Traffic, Small Claims, Probate Building Area: Total - 361,000 BGSF, Renovated - 3,800 BGSF Finance Method: Court Fees Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Silver

155

San Joaquin County Courthouse • Lodi, California As the lease was expiring for the existing obsolete, seismicallychallenged one-courtroom courthouse, the City offered space on an empty second floor to be renovated into a branch court. With the renovated floor, the San Joaquin County Courthouse is now a fullservice, state-of-the-art courthouse that maintains a local presence and convenience for citizens.

The second floor facility is fully accessible for public, staff, and inmates. Two separate elevators are provided for the public and staff. A second egress stair was also added.

The low floor-to-floor height required ingenious and meticulous mechanical system planning to achieve the nearly 12’-0” courtroom ceiling height.

The renovation provides a multiuse 64-seat courtroom for civil and high-security criminal trials, traffic, small claims, and limited domestic proceedings. The renovation also includes a jury room, judges’ chambers, staff break room, staff toilet, holding cells, sally ports, attorney/client visiting booth, court administration offices, and civil and criminal court clerk work spaces.

Additionally, there is a public entry/ queuing area and security screening on the first floor with public toilets

156

and lobby/waiting area on the second floor. For various public-staff communications, a separate waiting

area and secure transaction windows are located off the main public lobby/ waiting area.

Owner

County of San Joaquin Stockton, California

Security On Line Consulting Services Oakland, California

Architect of Record HOK San Francisco, California

Lighting HE Banks San Francisco, California

Structural Engineer Structural Design Engineers San Francisco, California

Cost Estimator Hanscomb

Building Area: Renovated - 7,648 GSF; 7,200 NAA

General Contractor BRCO Constructors, Inc. Loomis, California

Financing Method: Court Fees, State Court Construction Fund

Mechanical Engineer HOK San Francisco, California Acoustic / Audio Visual Shen Milsom Wilke San Francisco, California

Photographer Chi Fang

Completion Date: 2007 Number of Courtrooms: 1 Construction Cost: $2.0 million Type of Court: Criminal / High Security, Civil, Domestic, Small Claims, Traffic

Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: Renovation LEED Certification: Designed to LEED but not certified

157

Staten Island Courthouse • St. George, Staten Island, New York The new Staten Island Supreme Courthouse, located in downtown St. George, Staten Island, will house the New York State Civil and Criminal Supreme Court and County Criminal Court and related agencies. Its prominent hilltop location has a distinct presence on the St. George skyline with commanding views to and from the New York harbor.

The project transforms an existing four-acre municipal parking lot and former site of a 19th Century New York Marine Hospital Quarantine Grounds into a new civic center.

The design seeks to establish a clear identity for a 21st Century courthouse and respond to the

158

unique characteristics of the site while providing for a state-of-the art court facility. The building will accommodate 14 courtrooms with collegial chambers. Four towers of justice, formed by the rigorous ordering of the courtrooms within the building, create a symbolic presence on the skyline. The legible expression of the program is revealed through the transparent glass façade of the building’s primary elevation.

public circulation space behind the transparent glass curtain wall that features views of the harbor beyond and allows daylighting into the primary public zones of the building. The building’s western façade is a more opaque composition of precast, copper, and glass in response to the afternoon light. This zone of the building will contain jury deliberation rooms and judges’ robing rooms adjacent to the courtrooms within.

The primary public areas, including the lobby and jury assembly spaces, faces east towards the harbor and are located on the first level. The vertical court towers clad in copper are set back and unified by the

In addition to the courthouse, a new public landscape will be created to memorialize the burial grounds of the quarantine hospital. An adjacent parking garage for court staff and the public is also included.

Owner

Dormitory Authority of the State of New York Architect of Record Polshek Partnership Architects New York, New York Courts Planning & Interior Design RicciGreene Associates New York, New York Landscape Architect Mathews Nielsen Landscape Architects, P.C. New York, New York Civil Engineer Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc. New York, New York Structural Engineer Leslie E. Robertson Associates New York, New York Mechanical Engineer Lakhani & Jordan Engineers New York, New York General Contractor T. Moriarty & Son, Inc. Brooklyn, New York Photographer Polshek Partnership Architects New York, New York Completion Date: 2013 Construction Cost: $ 129.0 million Number of Courtrooms: 14 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil Building Area: 182,000 BGSF; 110,000 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Project Manager Oversight Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Silver

159

Superior Court of California, Plumas-Sierra • Portola, California The Superior Court of California is the first multi-jurisdictional courthouse in California. As the responsibility for the courts has shifted from county to state, this courthouse is a pioneering effort in serving two counties and represents a regional approach to the delivery of justice in California.

The single courtroom program permitted flexibility to design a space not bound by multicourtroom limitations. To maintain a center bench, the jury box was pushed out of the typical rectangular courtroom shell, rotated towards the judge, and exposed on the building’s exterior.

A cantilevered soffit provided definition to the jury box and serves as a light shelf for windows above.

The side walls of the spectator area curved towards the litigation well reinforcing the courtroom axis.

Finally, a suspended wood element starts in the lobby, continues through the spectator area curving upward, and ends over the judge’s bench defining the prominence of the judge.

The facility is equipped with a stateof-the-art AV system providing

160

remote video capability. Passive solar concepts were employed throughout which allowed for daylighting and views in all occupied spaces.

The court functions were expressed volumetrically by the exterior architecture.

The courtroom volume and jury box are clad in metal paneling to define their importance. The tall lobby creates a transverse axis through the building, terminating with curtain wall glazing at both ends.

Contemporary adaptations of traditional courthouse components complete the design. The landscaping terraces downhill, effectively placing the courthouse on a traditional plinth of steps. A covered walkway provides a colonnade and the roofline is reminiscent of a traditional pediment. Great care was taken in the planning and design to express hierarchy and to reinforce the dignity of the courts through procession, materials, and scale.

Owner

Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts Sacramento, California Architect of Record Nacht & Lewis Architects Sacramento, California

Mechanical Engineer Capital Engineering Consultants Rancho Cordova, California Audio / Visual Smith Fause & McDonald San Francisco, California

Landscape Architect Wild Landscape

Cost Estimating Sierra West Group Sacramento, California

Civil Engineer RSC Engineering Roseville, California

General Contractor S W Allen Sacramento, California

Structural Engineer CYS Structural Engineers Sacramento, California

Photographer Ed Asmus

Completion Date: 2009 Construction Cost: $ 4.7 million Number of Courtrooms: 1 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Probate Building Area: 7,312 BGSF; 6,812 NAA Finance Method: Special Tax Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

161

Taunton Trial Court • Taunton, Massachusetts, USA The 350 year old City of Taunton has a rich history most prominently evidenced in the Richardsonian Romanesque architecture of the dominant 1890 Bristol County Superior Courthouse. The main design challenge for the new Taunton Trial Court was introducing a very large courthouse into the heart of the City’s three- and four-story urban fabric while maintaining the extraordinary Superior Courthouse as the centerpiece of the courts complex. With the commitment to eventually renovate the Superior Courthouse, the goal was to provide for the longterm needs of all five trial court departments through the combination of the new facility and the future renovation of, and connection to, the historic court building.

162

The new 146,000 square foot courthouse serves the District, Juvenile, Housing, Probate, and Family Court departments with a total of eight courtrooms. The Superior Court will remain in the historic building for civil business with two additional courtrooms.

The building’s program, adjacencies, and layout were designed to serve specific court departments and meet today’s needs with collegial judges’ lobbies on the top level, six courtrooms on the third level, transaction and support spaces on the second level, and the juvenile and arraignment courtrooms on the ground level. This organization allows for future adjustments as needed.

On the exterior, the new building continues the spirit of vigor and

robustness of the Superior Court translated into new forms and materials. The main courtroom block is subdivided into smaller units corresponding to pairs of courtrooms bringing the large new building into scale with its neighbors. Wrapped in textured limestone with a granite base, it opens to the landscaped plaza with a screened glass wall along the public waiting areas.

The tower-like entry pavilion echoes the tower of the Superior Courthouse but reverses its material. It is transparent to reveal the Superior Courthouse beyond.

Located between the traditional Superior Courthouse and the new building is a welcoming public plaza with an entry pavilion providing universal access to the entire complex.

Owner

Division of Capital Asset Management Commonwealth of Massachusetts Boston, Massachusetts Architect of Record Leers Weinzapfel Associates Architects, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts Landscape Architect Stephen Stimson Associates Falmouth, Massachusetts

Civil Engineer Green International Affiliates Westford, Massachusetts Structural Engineer LIM Consultants Cambridge, Massachusetts Mechanical Engineer Cosentini Associates Cambridge, Massachusetts Construction Manager Daniel O’Connell’s Sons Holyoke, Massachusetts

Completion Date: 2011 Construction Cost: $ 58.6 million Number of Courtrooms: 8 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Juvenile, Domestic, Small Claims, Traffic, Probate Building Area: 147,611 BGSF; 76,488 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Construction Management Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Silver

163

Wake County Justice Center • Raleigh, North Carolina Challenged with one of the highest rates of population and case load growth in the nation, the new Wake County Justice Center will house the Wake County Criminal Courts and the Wake County Public Records Administration.

The 11-story facility is more than 550,000 square feet with the capacity for 22 new criminal courtrooms equipped with state-of-the-art technology, as well as support space for the Clerk of Court and Public Defender. The new Center also includes a new County Commissioners’ Meeting Room and County Administrative Offices.

The biggest combining

164

challenge judicial

was and

governmental functions into a unified civic structure. As a result, eight security screening stations are distributed between the two public entry points leading to the five-story atrium that acts as a main street connecting the public areas and building’s functional components.

Located on the ground floor in the central atrium are a number of public information features. There are two electronic directories and several docket display flat panels that are visible to all visitors.

There is also a public self-service area with public access terminals for pro-se litigants and a media

room with a video and audio feed to each courtroom and an outside hook-up for mobile broadcast vehicles.

The high-volume District Courtrooms for criminal and traffic cases are located on the lower three floors and can accommodate over 100 spectators in the gallery. The ground level features a special Disposition Courtroom suite with a large processing area. There is a large, specialized courtroom that can process over 300 cases each day and an ancillary hearing room for cases that can be disposed of by a magistrate.

Owner

Wake County Government Raleigh, North Carolina Architect of Record O’Brien / Atkins Associates, PA Durham, North Carolina Partner or Joint Venture HOK Washington, DC Landscape Architect HOK Washington, DC Civil Engineer Mulkey Engineers & Consultants Raleigh, North Carolina Structural Engineer GKC Associates Durham, North Carolina Mechanical Engineer O’Brien / Atkins Associates, PA Durham, North Carolina General Contractor Burnhill / Balfour Beatty Completion Date: 2012 Construction Cost: $ 87.0 million Number of Courtrooms: 23 Type of Court: Criminal Building Area: 332,072 BGSF; 292,267 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Silver

165

Washington County Courthouse • Stillwater, Minnesota A major phase of Washington County Courthouse’s expansion was consolidating court operations into a user-friendly, operationally effective facility that accommodates growth until 2025; maximizes reuse, durability, and sustainability; and provides appropriate security.

Challenges for this project included the creation of clustered functional court groupings, and the design and construction of the addition filling the gap between the Law Enforcement Center and the courthouse while both facilities remained operational.

Goals included the creation of space for future expansion, the establishment of a public link between all facilities on the campus, and blending the design of the new additions to the existing Courthouse, Law

166

Enforcement Center, and the fivestory Government Center.

and resolve issues before entering the courtroom on the first floor.

The compact five-story courthouse addition, wedged between the existing Law Enforcement Center and Courthouse, is a modern interpretation of the existing Brutalist architecture of the 1960’s to 1980’s. Large masses of brick and stone veneer are separated by vast expanses of glazing which reduces energy and brings stress-reducing daylight to public spaces, offices, and courtrooms.

The addition provides a userfriendly court administration public counter, a self-help center, a fine payment suite, and a high volume courtroom. There is also a large public waiting area surrounded by a dozen conference rooms for attorneys and their clients to meet

The second, third, and fourth floors provide two sets of paired flexible courtrooms with a secure holding suite and elevators separated from a judicial staff elevator and robin=g rooms. The four courtrooms overlook the generous public waiting lobby with calming views of historic Stillwater to the scenic St. Croix River in the distance. The second floor also boasts a link to the adjacent Law Enforcement Center Addition, the in-custody courtroom, and to the remodeled family/juvenile courtrooms in the remodeled existing Courthouse. The fifth floor provides a collegial and secure atmosphere for all judges’ chambers, conference room, resource library, and support staff space.

Owner

Washington County Stillwater, Minnesota

Mechanical Engineer Wold Architects and Engineers St. Paul, Minnesota

Architect of Record Wold Architects and Engineers St. Paul, Minnesota

Audio Visual Consultants Dunham Associates Minneapolis, Minnesota

Landscape Architect and Civil Engineer Anderson Johnson Associates Minneapolis, Minnesota

Acoustical Design Consultants Kvernstoen, Ronnholm, & Associates, Inc. Minneapolis, Minnesota

Structural Engineer BKBM Engineers Maple Grove, Minnesota

Detention / Security Consultants Latta Technical Services Indianapolis, Indiana General Contractor Kraus Anderson Construction Circle Pines, Minnesota

Completion Date: 2010 Number of Courtrooms: 13 (6 shelled for future use) Construction Cost: $38.2 million Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Drug, Small Claims, Traffic Building Area: New - 144,459 GSF, Renovation - 105,360 GSF Financing Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build, Multiple Prime Contract, Construction Management Type of Construction: Addition, Renovation LEED Certification: None

167

Worcester Trial Court • Worcester, Massachusetts The Worcester Trial Court on Main Street in downtown Worcester is the geographical center of the state court system and was the first comprehensive justice center in Massachusetts to include all five trial court departments. The co-location of all of the court departments supported by central detention, a drop-in childcare center, archival record storage, jury deliberation suites, and other multiuser spaces promotes efficiency and collaboration among court departments. The building was designed with a highly organized plan addressing the long-term needs of the region with the potential for future growth and adaptations accommodating future changes in technology and court operations.

Copper roofs, terrazzo, and stone surfaces in public spaces are examples of material choices dominated by a desire for longevity.

Additionally, the design of the building is flexible with collegial judges’ lobbies, courtrooms, and transaction areas that can be re-

168

aligned and repurposed as court department needs and relative caseloads change over time.

The design efficiently supports the flow of visitors and volume of business at this large 26 courtroom facility. The public entrance on Main Street leads from the generous exterior plaza through a deep security screening area into the five-story central atrium marked by the dominant monumental stair. The courtrooms and transaction areas on the upper levels can be seen from this great hall facilitating circulation and security surveillance.

The atrium is bathed in natural light from a large gabled skylight on the roof. Smaller perpendicular skylights over the collegial judges’ areas provide additional natural lighting for the interior courtrooms and judicial reception.

Other courtrooms are located at the perimeter to maximize direct natural lighting and the transaction areas include large open office areas

with low partitions to facilitate light penetration deep into the building.

A palate of natural toned materials including ochre-hued Jerusalem marble, terrazzo flooring, and figured Makore wood paneling creates warmth throughout the large atrium and conveys the dignity and durability of the Court.

Owner

Division of Capital Asset Management Commonwealth of Massachusetts Boston, Massachusetts

Structural Engineer Lim Consultants, Inc. Cambridge, Massachusetts

Architect of Record Shepley Bulfinch Richardson & Abbott, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts

Mechanical Engineer BR+A Consulting Engineers, Inc. Watertown, Massachusetts SAR Engineering, Inc. Quincy, Massachusetts

Landscape Architect Copley Wolff Design Group Boston, Massachusetts

Lighting Peter Coxe Associates Marblehead, Massachusetts

Civil Engineer Nitsch Engineering, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts

Security CCR Pyramid, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts Court Programmer Justice Planning Associates Columbia, South Carolina Cost Estimating DG Jones & Partners General Contractor / Construction Manager Gilbane Building Company, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts Photographer Interiors: Richard Mandelkorn Lincoln, Massachusetts Exterior: Frank Giuliani Portsmouth, Rhode Island Completion Date: 2007 Construction Cost: $ 146.0 million Number of Courtrooms: 26 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Juvenile, Domestic, Small Claims, Traffic, Probate Building Area: 427,000 BGSF; 280,000 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Construction Management Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Designed to LEED but not submitted

169

York County Judicial Center • York County, Pennsylvania Located on a site within the historic district of York County, the design strikes a balance between the civic requirements and ceremonial needs of a judicial facility. The York County Judicial Center houses 12 courtrooms and their associated support spaces, as well as designated office space for county departments, below-grade secure parking, and detention areas. A shelled floor allows the county to add six more courtrooms and eight judges’ chambers in the future.

Electronic directories and docket display flat panels inform visitors as they arrive and pass through security. There is also a public selfservice area with access terminals for pro-se litigants and a media room with a video and audio feed to each of the courtrooms.

In addition to the jury courtrooms, the center features seven public hearing rooms of various sizes that can be used by Judges, Masters, or other building users as multipurpose spaces. Four of these have direct access to the prisoner elevators and can be set up as mini-courtrooms. The other rooms have moveable furniture and can be used for mediation, arbitration, pre-trial conferences, or general meetings.

Special provision was made to ensure the facility will be appropriately equipped to handle the technological demands of the 21st century; particularly in court automation and specialized communication systems. Computers and video monitors installed in the courtrooms, chambers, and public areas allow viewing of automated case records and the ability to conduct legal research. The two largest courtrooms are fully equipped with flat screen monitors at all of the stations in the well for

170

remote testimony and evidence display. All other courtrooms have a voice enhancement digital AV systems and sound masking. All courtroom well areas have a raised access flooring system that will easily accommodate upgrades in court technology.

The courthouse features numerous skylights, atriums, and

courtyards adding natural light to the central zone of the facility.

All of the courtrooms have access to natural daylight, and are complemented with highlyefficient direct and indirect florescent light sources. The building saves energy through heat recovery and extensive use of daylighting in most work areas and all public spaces.

Owner

York County York, Pennsylvania Architect of Record HOK New York, New York Landscape Architect HOK New York, New York Civil Engineer First Capital Engineering York, Pennsylvania Structural Engineer Weidlinger Associates, Inc. New York, New York Mechanical Engineer Syska Hennessy Group New York, New York General Contractor Kinsley Construction Wyomissing, Pennsylvania Photographer Alan Karchmar (Exterior) Bryson Leidich (Interior) Completion Date: 2004 Construction Cost: $42.0 million Number of Courtrooms: 12 plus 6 Shelled Type of Court: Criminal, Civil Building Area: 329,300 BGSF; 223,100 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Multiple Prime Contract Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

171

Specialty and Limited Jurisdiction Courts

Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center • San Leandro, California The County Juvenile Justice Center reflects the County’s desire for a calming, supportive, and hospitable support area including a public self-help center and victim/witness accommodations.

The facility includes juvenile and family courts, a juvenile detention facility, and administrative offices for related justice agencies. The court wing includes five courtrooms and hearing rooms with extensive administrative and public support areas.

The project presented several challenges. Bridging documents for the project received by the design-build team were nearly twice the County’s budget requiring the project to be completely re-programmed and redesigned in order to stay within budget. The County also desired additional functional, safety, and operational efficiency requirements for the facility. The steeply sloping hillside site located over an active seismic fault line represented an extraordinary engineering challenge; the site also contained wetland areas and other environmental challenges that needed to be accommodated.

Extensive sustainable design elements have been incorporated into the design and the facility received LEED certification to be the first LEED Gold Juvenile Justice Center in the nation.

Energy savings from the building design exceeds California energy efficiency standards by 40 percent saving 500 KW annually.

A light-colored, Energy Starrated cool roof system covers 180,000 square feet of the facility deflecting the sun’s rays. An 850 KW solar panel array on the roof generates over 60 percent of the electricity required to power the building.

174

Owner

Alameda County, California Architect of Record HOK San Francisco, California Partner or Joint Venture Beverly Prior Associates, Associate Architect San Francisco, California Gerson Overstreet, Associate Architect Oakland, California Landscape Architect Keller Mitchell & Co. Oakland, California Civil Engineer Telamon Engineering Consultants, Inc. San Francisco, California Structural Engineer The KPA Group Oakland, California Mechanical Engineer MCT Engineers, Inc. San Francisco, California Security Buford Goff & Associates, Inc. Columbia, South Carolina General Contractor Hensel Phelps Construction Company San Jose, California Photographer Chi Fang Completion Date: 2007 Number of Courtrooms: 5 Construction Cost: $135.0 million Type of Court: Criminal, Juvenile, Family Building Area: 370,000 BGSF Finance Method: Court Fees, State Grant, General Funds Delivery Method: Design / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Gold

175

Arizona State Courts Building New Data Center • Phoenix, Arizona The Arizona Supreme Court began with a small room of 993 square feet to house all of their IT equipment. Over the past 18 years, increasing demand on the IT system has expanded beyond the room’s capabilities. The data room was further compromised by recurring water damage caused by its location on the first floor. A review of the Supreme Court’s data needs, current data room, and network equipment led to the recommendation to build a new 4,000 square foot data center to support the Supreme Court’s statewide information needs.

The new Data Center consists of 150+ servers supporting over 250 applications. It runs over 9 miles of copper cabling and 1.5 miles of fiber. The network supports 4,000+ users located in over 300 locations and processes up to 400 million packets of data per second. The racks are configured to allow for hot and cold aisles keeping maximum cooling on all equipment. The system provides up to 48 Terabytes of data storage and is expandable to four times that amount.

The Data Center includes full redundancy in HVAC and power

176

systems along with an overhead and below raised floor cable tray system. All floor tiles are removable and capable of being rearranged to allow for under-floor access, acts as an air conditioning duct, and is pressurized.

Fire protection was designed to provide both pre-action and FM200 system coverage. It has a Primary FMS-200 Fire Management System replacing an old halon system and uses a clean EPA approved environmentally safe agent to

suppress fire that does not harm electrical equipment.

The Data Center has 2 UPS (uninterrupted power supply).

These are 150 KVA systems with 15 minute battery backup. If normal power from the electrical provider fails, this system maintains uninterrupted power to equipment until the 500 KW diesel generator comes on-line and assumes the equipment load. It also acts as a filtering system to ensure constant, clean voltage to critical equipment.

Owner

State of Arizona Phoenix, Arizona

Structural Engineer KPFF Consulting Engineers Phoenix, Arizona

Architect of Record LSW Engineers Phoenix, Arizona

Mechanical / Electrical Engineer LSW Engineers Phoenix, Arizona

Partner or Joint Venture MRT Architects Phoenix, Arizona

General Contractor The Beck Group Dallas, Texas

Completion Date: 2008 Number of Courtrooms: Not Applicable Construction Cost: $1.6 million Type of Court: Court Administration Building Area: 4,000 BGSF; 3,750 NAA Finance Method: Appropriation Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: Renovation LEED Certificate: Designed to LEED but not submitted

177

Bridgeport Superior Court for Juvenile Matters and Detention Center • Bridgeport, Connecticut The location of the Bridgeport Superior Court for Juvenile Matter and Detention Center is both a muchneeded replacement facility to provide services for youth at risk, and a key element in the revitalization of this struggling city’s historic waterfront.

The project is composed of two separate buildings, a courthouse and a detention facility, linked by a vehicular sallyport. The site is organized to make the courthouse the prominent public face and the detention a private background element.

The 92,000 square foot complex houses three courtrooms and 44 sleeping rooms. The courts’ building is designed to make circulation and wayfinding for the public clear and convenient with a monumental stairway connecting to the courtroom floor. The judges’ chambers are located on the private side of the building with views of the waterfront and river. The public waiting area has a large glass wall to the main approach, with transparency used to facilitate orientation as well as enhancing a sense of connection to the outside.

The building is situated on a remediated brownfield site. The many sustainable

178

strategies employed in the project such as extensive daylighting, materials choices, systems configuration, and

urban location qualify the building for LEED Certification if the owner desires to do so.

Owner

State of Connecticut Hartford, Connecticut

Structural / Mechanical Engineer BVH Integrated Services Bloomfield, Connecticut

Architect of Record Jeter, Cook & Jepson Architects Hartford, Connecticut

Security Professional Systems Engineering Lansdale, Pennsylvania

Planning & Design Architects RicciGreene Associates New York, New York

General Contractor Turner Construction Company Milford, Connecticut

Landscape Architect W Architecture New York, New York

Photographer Robert Benson Hartford, Connecticut

Civil Engineer Diversified Technology Consultants North Haven, Connecticut

Completion Date: 2008 Number of Courtrooms: 3 Construction Cost: $39.0 million Type of Court: Juvenile Building Area: 92,000 BGSF Finance Method: Private / Public Partnership Delivery Method: Design / Build; Construction Management Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Designed to LEED but not submitted

179

Gilbert Municipal Court and Public Safety Complex • Gilbert, Arizona The Gilbert Municipal Court and Public Safety Complex’s design responds to the primary issues of program, climate, and civic presence. The program combines dissimilar civic functions of law enforcement, fire protection, and courts while giving the impression of three separate buildings through separate entrances and identities for each function. These entrances and the building’s three main forms are arranged to foster relationships between the elements and project both a unity of purpose and autonomy of function.

The courthouse is located across the street from the Town Administration Building and the two buildings create a larger civic center for the Town of Gilbert. This relationship is reinforced through several contextual design elements reinforcing the court’s importance and establishing a wider civic campus. First, the existing drop off drive was mirrored and replicated in the court project to create a public courtyard on the north side of the building. Second, the same brick used on the Town Administration Building was used as the base material of the courthouse to maintain a single color and texture palette to introduce individualizing variations and contrasts. Third, the scale of the new complex’s building was kept in relation to the two-story height of the existing building. Other materials such as glass, ground face masonry units, metal roofing, and wall panels further modulate the scale of the new complex by breaking it down into manageable, campus-size portions.

Future expansion is planned to accommodate the pattern of continued rapid growth in the greater Phoenix area. The building’s orientation is in response to the harsh climate with public spaces facing north allowing for increased

180

glazing on the north side of the structure overlooking the public plaza. The east and west façades have minimal fenestration to minimize solar heat gain. Extensive

use of masonry, broad sunshades, and simple fenestration patterns reinforce a statement of civic architecture that is grounded in the tradition of the Southwest.

Owner

Town of Gilbert Gilbert, Arizona Architect of Record HDA Architects Gilbert, Arizona Partner or Joint Venture PSA-Dewberry Fairfax, Virginia Civil Engineer Hubbard Engineering Mesa, Arizona Structural Engineer Paragon Structural Design, Inc. Phoenix, Arizona Mechanical Engineer Bridgers & Paxton Consulting Engineers Phoenix, Arizona General Contractor D. L. Withers Construction Phoenix, Arizona Photographer Richard Abrams Photographer Scottsdale, Arizona Completion Date: 2003 Number of Courtrooms: 9 Construction Cost: $31.3 million Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Small Claims, Traffic Building Area: 194,344 BGSF; 114,961 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build; Construction Management Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

181

Glendale City Courthouse • Glendale, Arizona

Glendale Avenue’s redevelopment is planned to revitalize the historic downtown community with a pedestrian friendly streetscape that honors its heritage and welcomes its future. Located at the eastern approach to downtown, the Glendale City Courthouse serves as the cornerstone for redevelopment.

The three-story courthouse initially provides 10 courtrooms with shell space for four additional courtrooms and support functions.

The architecture respects the classic elements of courthouse design reinterpreted with a modern sensibility. A three-story glass entry atrium anchors the court façade. The lightness of the glass entry is approachable to the public and represents transparency and accessibility of our justice system.

Massive columns set against substantial masonry walls represent the strength and permanence of the court. The landscape is designed to embrace the building with desert indigenous plants and sweeping walls ascend to create a sense of importance at the front entry. Trellis structures punctuate and formalize the pedestrian entry procession and provide shade in this harsh desert environment.

182

The building’s interior is configured to provide an effective but imperceptible separation of public and secure spaces. To reduce screening and congestion, a driveup service kiosk is provided for those who simply need to make a payment. A sally port and incustody receiving area with dedicated elevator provide secure transfer of defendants to holding cells adjacent to courtrooms.

Every chamber has natural lighting, bullet resistant glazing, and a private restroom. Side doors in the traffic and arraignment courtrooms

allow the court clerks to move from the courtroom to an adjacent service counter outside of the court.

A dumbwaiter from the central file room to the upper floors allow for quick transportation of documents and evidence to the courtrooms.

Glass is used to subtly separate space to create a security barrier while maintaining transparency.

Materials were chosen not only to tie aesthetically to the surrounding historic buildings, but for their sustainability. The exterior masonry and the cast in place concrete frame have a high recycled content.

Owner

The City of Glendale Glendale, Arizona Architect of Record Dick & Fritsche Design Group Phoenix, Arizona Partner or Joint Venture HOK San Francisco, California Landscape Architect Logan Simpson Design Tempe, Arizona Civil Engineer Evans, Kuhn Associates Phoenix, Arizona Structural Engineer KPFF Consulting Engineers, Inc. Phoenix, Arizona Mechanical / Electrical Engineer LSW Engineers Arizona, Inc. Phoenix, Arizona General Contractor D. L. Withers Construction Phoenix, Arizona Completion Date: 2012 Number of Courtrooms: 10 courtrooms, plus 4 additional shell space Construction Cost: $35.0 million Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Small Claims, Traffic Building Area: 113,716 BGSF Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Design / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Silver

183

Kapolei Judiciary Complex • Kapolei, O‘ahu, Hawaii The Kapolei Judiciary Complex serves as a centralized facility providing proper venue for the resolution of a wide diversity of family court and other matters in an efficient, dignified, fair, and timely manner.

It has the flexibility to respond to the changing judicial needs of the community and meet projected future growth demands. It also symbolizes the community’s commitment to the safety, well being, and fair treatment of children and families.

The Kapolei Judiciary Complex contains 12 non-jury courtrooms primarily for Family Court and one large Circuit jury courtroom.

Combined with the new courthouse is a new 60-bed Juvenile Detention Facility. The courthouse contains administrative and support functions such as juvenile and adult client services, and public-interface functions such as fiscal and legal documents transactions. Judges’ chambers and staff areas are securely housed on the top floor.

The discrete circulation systems allow judges, staff, and detainees move with privacy and security. The courtroom design indicates each person’s role in the proceedings.

From carefully placed benches, the judges can clearly see the faces of the people whose situation they are considering.

The design reflects a thoroughly Hawaiian response for a civic facility.

Design expression comes from the traditional Territorial architecture in Kapolei from this modern institution with its state-of-the-art court operations technology and practices, and from the local culture of O‘ahu expressed through commissioned public art.

Five grand art glass windows by Doug Young, a Hawaii artist, are positioned to align with the public waiting areas for each courtroom.

184

Sculptor Leland Miyano’s impressive stone pieces in the landscape anchor the community to its voyaging past.

The kapa-inspired design embedded in the building exterior, designed by the architect, encompasses the family, community, and the cosmic

laws of heaven, people, and the land. The ceiling designs for the courtrooms and waiting areas, with lights in a circle, are a gentle reminder of the Hawaiian custom of ho‘oponopono (righting a wrong through group effort).

Owner

State of Hawaii Department of Accounting and General Services Architect of Record Architects Hawaii, Ltd. Honolulu, Hawaii Landscape Architect Brownlie & Lee Honolulu, Hawaii Civil / Structural Engineer Mitsunaga & Associates, Inc. Honolulu, Hawaii

Mechanical Engineer Thermal Engineering Corp. (Family Court) Honolulu, Hawaii Lincolne Scott, Ltd. (Juvenile Detention) Honolulu, Hawaii

Court Planners Carter Goble Associates, Inc. Columbia, South Carolina Dan L. Wiley & Associates, Inc. Stuart, Florida

Electrical Engineer ECS, Inc. (Family Court) Honolulu, Hawaii Nakamura Oyama & Associates (Juvenile Detention) Honolulu, Hawaii

Security Electronic / Data Communications Justice Systems Albuquerque, New Mexico

Accessibility Accessibility Planning & Consulting Honolulu, Hawaii

Security / Detention Integrus Architecture Seattle, Washington Cost Consultant Rider Levett Bucknall Seattle, Washington Acoustical Y. Ebisu & Associates Honolulu, Hawaii General Contractor Unlimited Construction Services, Inc. Honolulu, Hawaii Photographer Architects Hawaii, Ltd. Honolulu, Hawaii Completion Date: 2010 Number of Courtrooms: 13 Construction Cost: $109.0 million; $63.0 million (Court portion of facility) Type of Court: Criminal, Domestic, Juvenile, Drug, Small Claims, Traffic Building Area: Total - 193,904 BGSF, Family Court - 126,215 GSF, Juvenile Detention Center - 52,305 GSF, Central Plant - 15,384 GSF Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

185

Loveland Police and Courts Building • Loveland, Colorado A building esteemed by its users for its design and functionality, the Loveland Police and Courts Building remedied the problem of cramped, rundown, and makeshift offices previously occupied by the City of Loveland and Larimer County. The City and the County elected to consolidate some of their services in a new 95,000 square foot building. This dynamic new building proved to be an impetus for a community-wide revitalization. The surrounding area has been inspired to bring its homes, businesses, and landscaping up to a new standard created by the building.

With a tapestry of brick patterning and an earth-toned color palette, the building’s design brings to mind of the spirit of the West through the woven prairie tones in the masonry. The contrast of the building’s curvilinear and angular aspects creates a tension energizing the building. The solidity of the masonry – incorporating five different types of brick − conveys permanence and the community’s respect for the rule of law.

186

The building’s hallmark is a large rounded entry rotunda capped by a pyramidal skylight that sits at the juncture of the building’s two wings delineating the entry location. As part of a percent-forarts program, two artist-designed trees frame the front doors and set a welcoming tone. The glass skylight forming the pyramid infuses light into the lobby, while

clerestories combined with interior windows and office-door sidelights allow penetration of indirect daylight deep into the building.

The departments are organized with respect to their individual functions and relationships to other departments. Distinct circulation plans ensure public, private, and secured areas that maximize safety and the ease of use.

Owner

City of Loveland / Larimer County Loveland, Colorado Architect of Record Fentress Architects Denver, Colorado Landscape Architect Vignette Studios, LLC Fort Collins, Colorado Civil Engineer RJ McNutt Associates Greeley, Colorado Structural Engineer Krawinkler, Luth, & Associates Loveland, Colorado Mechanical Engineer AE Associates Greeley, Colorado Security / Electronics Latta Technical Services Plano, Texas A/V Engineer David L. Adams Associates Denver, Colorado General Contractor Hensel Phelps Construction Co. Greeley, Colorado Photographer Kyle Castle Fort Collins, Colorado Chip Raches Los Angeles California Completion Date: 2002 Construction Cost: $22.5 million Number of Courtrooms: 3 Type of Court: Criminal Building Area: 15,794 BGSF; 11,253 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds Delivery Method: Design / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Designed to LEED but not submitted

187

Metropolitan Courthouse • Nashville, Tennessee The primary challenge in renovating the circa 1937 Metropolitan Courthouse was designing a solution that met the Courts’ programmatic and security needs and modern life-safety code requirements while maintaining and harmonizing the building’s impressive historic fabric. The goal was to keep all the historic elements in place while creating a facility that will be functional, secure, and adaptable for users and the public for another 50 years.

Full infrastructure for state-ofthe-art courtroom technology was incorporated in all the litigation spaces without detracting from the original aesthetics of the courthouse’s interiors. All of the courtrooms have the ability to utilize video conferencing including remote testimony and remote arraignment, digital evidence presentation, and real-time court reporting. All proceedings can be digitally recorded as well as digitally video-taped. Individual flat screen monitors at the Judge’s bench, witness stand, attorney tables minimize the impact on historic litigation space. A flat screen monitor is shared by two jurors in the jury box.

A slight redesign of the south terrace adjacent to a new public plaza brought the facility into full compliance with accessibility requirements. Two new access ramps were designed symmetrically ascending from the main terrace level to a raised portion of the terrace which serves as a large landing at the finished floor level.

New stair and elevator cores were added at each end of the building for secure vertical access and egress deficiencies in the existing building. The building was made ADA accessible and modern courtroom technology and security

188

systems were introduced without detracting from their overall historic context.

Abundant natural light is available through the large civic scaled windows of the building’s façade.

All the courtrooms have direct exposure to natural daylight and have minimal need for artificial

illumination. The building’s original design allowed for natural daylight to penetrate into the facility through glass placed in many interior partitions and doors. New lighting was integrated for supplemental lighting or for accenting of the building’s remarkable artwork uses high efficiency fixtures reducing energy consumption.

Owner

Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County Nashville, Tennessee Architect of Record Barge Waggoner Sumner and Cannon Nashville, Tennessee Partner or Joint Venture PSA-Dewberry Fairfax, Virginia

Landscape Architect Tuck Hinton Architects Nashville, Tennessee Wallace Roberts and Todd Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Civil / Structural / Mechanical Engineer Barge Waggoner Sumner and Cannon Nashville, Tennessee

Preservation Architect Mesick, Cohen, Wilson, Baker, Architects, LLP Albany, New York Programming Justice Planning Associates Columbia, South Carolina General Contractor Hardaway Construction Corporation Nashville, Tennessee Photographer Bob Schatz Nashville, Tennessee Completion Date: 2007 Number of Courtrooms: 13 plus 2 shelled spaces Construction Cost: $35.7 million Type of Court: Civil, Domestic Building Area: 232,615 BGSF; 221,135 NAA Finance Method: General Funds Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: Renovation LEED Certificate: None

189

CITATION

Miami-Dade Children’s Courthouse • Miami, Florida The Miami-Dade Children’s Courthouse is a modern, safe, and sustainable judicial environment designed specifically for delinquent and neglected children. The 14-story building consolidates all 17 agencies dealing with troubled children in one facility. It will provide judges, counselors, and families with a vastly improved environment for grappling the complex problems facing them.

The courthouse, with 18 courtrooms, administrative and support space, and common areas, is a signature building within the urban framework of downtown Miami. Considerable attention was given to the multi-cultural values surrounding children in the justice system. From early programming decisions, the process has been one reflecting the importance of valuedriven justice and care.

Although it shares elements of a traditional courthouse, this facility provides a unique environment tailored to children. The size, type, and configuration of spaces, as well as the choice of materials, are designed to be non-threatening.

Corridors and public areas are generous with plentiful daylight, public art depicting Florida bears in brass, and a three-story mosaic mural. Other playful elements are incorporated into the design such as a confetti wall projecting from the tower’s façade featuring windows with clear and colored glass.

Other considerations addressed by the design involve socio-economic and demographic factors, the range of legal issues impacting children’s justice, special spatial requirements, and environmental challenges.

The design features multiple sustainability initiatives, and the project anticipates LEED Silver certification. The facility boasts an

190

energy-saving building envelope, high-efficiency water systems, extensive use of natural light, a park-like public plaza, bike racks and showers, a green roof, and the use of recycled materials among numerous other sustainable elements.

Jury Comment The unique functions, environment, and cultural diversity of the MiamiDade region are critical factors in the organization of the Children’s Courthouse in downtown Miami.

Cultural diversity is the essence of the city and the building reflects a safe and sustainable judicial environment designed for delinquent and neglected children in a respectful expression of the courts. These concepts are also reflected in all 17 supporting agencies that grapple with the complex challenges facing the young people it serves.

The Children’s Courthouse provides a non-threatening environment tailored to children using design

elements reflective of the diverse cultures of Miami. The details of the building, while providing all of the functional and security needs of the courthouse, add a sense of respectful playfulness through color, scale, materials, daylight, public art, and a three-story mosaic mural in the public entry lobby complemented by the escalators for access and viewing. The southern wall is an environmental element that contributes to the unique sustainable features of the building as a solar screen that doubles as cultural art. The wall is known as the confetti wall; full of openings of clear and colored glass. The building has been organized to maximize its orientation to the environment and provides multiple sustainable features such as the energy saving envelope, high efficiency water systems, recycled materials, a green roof, natural light, and a park-like public plaza.

Overall, the 14-story building is a very appropriate architectural fit for the climatic, socio-economic, and cultural environment of Miami.

191

192

Owner:

Miami-Dade County Miami, Florida Architect of Record HOK Miami, Florida Partner or Joint Venture Perez & Perez Architects Planners, Inc. Miami, Florida Landscape Architect Curtis + Rogers, Design Studio, Inc. Coconut Grove, Florida Civil Engineer EAC Consulting, Inc. Miami, Florida Structural Engineer Bliss & Nyitray, Inc. Miami, Florida Electrical Engineer TLC Engineering for Architecture Tampa, Florida Associate Architect (CA) Architects International, Inc. Miami, Florida Mechanical Engineer SDM Consulting Engineers, Inc. Coral Gables, Florida LEED Consultant BVM Engineering, Inc. Atlanta, Georgia General Contractor Not Yet Selected Completion Date: 2012 Construction Cost: $126.5 million Number of Courtrooms: 18 Type of Court: Juvenile Building Area: 371,500 BGSF; 227,000 NAA Finance Method: Government General Funds Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Silver

193

CITATION

Mills B. Lane Justice Center • Reno, Nevada The Reno Municipal Courts and the District Attorney’s Office was programmed as an addition to the existing Washoe County Justice Courts in anticipation of a future mandate by the State requiring the consolidation of the Municipal and Justice courts. Accordingly, the resulting new Mills B. Lane Justice Center had to reconcile the structures and operations of the existing courts with the new District Attorney offices and Municipal courts.

This eight-story, 160,000 square foot complex now houses six courtrooms and combines all operations of the District Attorney’s office under one roof. The client’s primary design objective was to convey to the community a vision of public service, human dignity, permanence, equality in treatment, flexibility, and hope.

While the design team addressed the challenges of the very limiting site, the court’s focus was ensuring the seamless integration of the new facility with the existing court facility. Both City and County Courts assumed that operating budget savings would result from the sharing of court security, custodial, and utility services, as well as savings from the shared use of existing public waiting areas, restrooms, and wayfinding space.

Community support for the project was based substantially on the court’s commitment to reducing these costs and ensuring convenient public access to the new complex.

The new Justice Center complements and harmonizes with the existing fabric of the downtown cityscape.

The building is located on a very compact site, and in response to this site constraint, a single point of entry was designed serving both buildings. This shared-use entry has created an identifiable

194

address on Sierra Street that has helped greatly with wayfinding. It also allowed for the consolidation of security screening functions, which resulted in significant cost savings to Washoe County and the City of Reno.

Incorporating artwork into the project was also a challenge as the space program did not allow for a formal gallery area. Instead, artwork was integrated directly into the building materials. A local artist created a mural on the floor of the main entrance lobby, and Washoe County School District students participated in a contest to design a large glass installation located on the landing of the facility’s main staircase.

The project demonstrates that, through community involvement and collaboration, co-location of justice services can occur in a way that supports local redevelopment, enhanced access to justice, more efficient court operations, and integration with local architecture.

Jury Comment The jury appreciated the sensitive and seamless design response to a very compact site. The

architect’s ability to develop a respectful accommodation of the original County Courts building in the final solution was noted during the jurors’ discussion and deliberations. There was consensus that the Court’s primary objectives of developing “a building that conveys to the community a building of public service, human dignity, permanence...” were met and exceeded.

The Mills B. Lane Justice Center occupies its site comfortably and provides a dignified anchor for the resurgence of an economically challenged area within this community. This is a skilled and thoughtful solution to the kinds of problems many communities face as they try to deal with the difficulties posed by continued use of aging courthouses. The design has resulted in a functional, safe, and efficient environment exceeding current requirements for day-to-day courthouse operations and security.

The level of stakeholder and community involvement underscores the civic pride and level of interest in their courthouse.

All those involved with this project can be proud and deserve to be commended.

195

Owner

Washoe County Reno, Nevada

General Contractor Clark & Sullivan Construction Sparks, Nevada

Architect of Record Tate Snyder Kimsey Architects Henderson, Nevada

Photographer Tom Bonner Photography Santa Monica, California

Landscape Architect / Civil Engineer CFA, Inc. Reno, Nevada

Completion Date: 2006

Structural Engineer Martin Peltyn & Associates Las Vegas, Nevada Mechanical / Electrical Engineer JBA Consulting Engineers Las Vegas, Nevada Programming Dan Wiley & Associates, Inc. Stuart, Florida

Construction Cost: $37.6 million Number of Courtrooms: 6 Type of Court: Criminal, Traffic Building Area: 162,682 BGSF; 122,473 NAA Finance Method: Court Fees Delivery Method: Single Prime Contract Type of Construction: Renovation / Historic Restoration LEED Certificate: None

196

197

CITATION

New York County Family Court • New York, New York Designed in 1969, the New York County Family Court Building was a black granite-clad civic structure in downtown Manhattan that developed a number of serious deficiencies by the late 1990s. The exterior wall was in disrepair and required replacement; the entrance lobby was too small for current use; it was cold in the winter and hot in the summer and in some instances, dangerous. The upper courtroom floors were no longer functional for the updated requirements of the family court program.

The new project is notable for its inventive transformation of the building on an area-by-area basis over a period of 10 years. The outcome is a contemporary, bright, practical, logical, and enjoyable new structure fulfilling all aspects of its client’s aspirations. The building has an entirely new exterior envelope; a new entrance lobby, children’s center, court officer’s suite, and newsstand on the first floor; and 15 new family court courtrooms with associated public waiting spaces, elevator lobbies, attorney conference rooms, judges’ robing rooms, and additional administrative spaces.

The lobby and entrance sequence of the original Brutalist building was awkward and hidden due to columnar walls at the corner of the building angled at 45-degrees creating hidden corners and blocking views to the glass-clad lobby. The boldest feature of the new design was eliminating and re-making these columns at 90-degrees to the building opening up the lobby to the exterior, bringing natural light into the entrance sequence, and eliminating dangerous hidden sight lines.

The client and design team placed enormous importance on picking materials and developing solutions

198

that humanized the structure, something that was sorely lacking in the original design. The team brought elements of scale to surfaces, chose materials that emphasized warmth, increased natural light and views to as many spaces as possible, and made layouts simple and logical to decrease confusion by building visitors.

One notable requirement was that the building had to remain fully operational throughout the entire construction process. This posed challenges at every phase of the work. Only the patient and creative joint-efforts of the entire design team, including the client, CM, and design professionals, made this possible and successful.

Jury Comment In reviewing the New York Family Court renovations, the jury was struck by the high degree of ingenuity evident in programming, complex project management, and revitalization of an exceptionally difficult existing space. Through a series of carefully staged renovations, this dated 1969 Brutalist design building has been transformed into a fully functional,

user-friendly family court services facility. All of this was accomplished in a high density urban setting with no major interruptions in court services.

The family court facility renovation is expansive; encompassing vitally needed structural modifications, a children’s center, numerous attorney conference rooms, and a curtain walled entry/lobby. The broad curtain wall conveys natural light to the inviting lobby, security screening, and public waiting areas. Reflected natural light also illuminates the atrium area, which opens to a second floor inner windowed space.

For families and court participants under stress, the remodeled public space instills a strong sense of calm, safety, and community connection. The newly designed infrastructure fully supports formal court proceedings, efficient public service functions, and back office administrative operations.

This project methodology should be considered required reading for jurisdictions considering extensive courthouse renovation and truly transformational leveraging of existing justice facilities.

199

200

Owner

Dormitory Authority of the State of New York New York, New York

Site / Civil / Geotechnical Engineering Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, P.C. Elmwood Park, New Jersey

MEP, Fire Protection & Telecom Engineering Cosentini Associates, LLP New York, New York

Architect of Record Mitchell | Giurgola Architects, LLP New York, New York

Structural Engineer Ysrael A. Seinuk, P.C. New York, New York

Lighting Design Cline Bettridge Bernstein Lighting Design New York, New York Cost Consultant Wolf and Company Katonah, New York Security Consultant Kroll Schiff & Associates Bernardsville, New Jersey Construction Manager The Morganti Group, Inc. New York, New York General Contractor (Exterior and Lobby) J. Petrocelli Construction Ronkonkoma, New York General Contractor (Interior Courtroom Floors) WDF, Inc. Mount Vernon, New York Photographer Esto Photographics Mamaroneck, New York Completion Date: 2010 Construction Cost: $58.5 million Number of Courtrooms: 15 Type of Court: Domestic, Juvenile, Family Building Area: 100,000 BGSF; 70,000 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds, Revenue Bonds Delivery Method: Multiple Prime Contract Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

201

The New York Judicial Institute, Pace University Law School • White Plains, NY The New York State Judicial Institute is a three-story 28,000 square foot training center for Unified Court System judges and staff. The Institute is the first of its kind in the nation providing continuing education and professional training for a state judicial system. The centerpiece of the facility is a 160-seat stepped auditorium with a dais stage for training and Moot Court sessions.

The main training room designed as a Moot Courtroom is equipped with advanced teleconferencing capabilities to broadcast training sessions to other locations within the building as well as other court facilities throughout the States.

Other major elements include a multi-use dining room, three break-out rooms for large group training, two conference rooms, a business center, a law library, telecommunications linked to the Pace University Law School, and the statewide Unified Court System.

A prominent entrance uses a curving wall and cylindershaped atrium that reaches upward and fills the main entrance hall with natural light.

The cylinder creates bright, airy conference areas inside the building with natural light and views of the campus. The curving surfaces aid in the flow of the building and make it seem larger. Sustainable lighting design was achieved with extensive daylighting and efficient fixtures. North-facing window curtain walls allow light to fill stairwells, breakout rooms, and sitting areas eliminating the need for artificial lighting during the day. The end product is a building that is functional, beautiful, and appropriate for the site.

202

Owner

Unified Court System State of New York Architect of Record Kaeyer, Garment & Davidson Architects & Engineers, P.C. Mount Kisco, New York Landscape Architect Imbiano Quigley Bedford Hills, New York Civil Engineer JWE Engineering Armonk, New York Structural Engineer Gilsanz, Murray, Steficek, LLP New York, New York Mechanical Engineer O’Dea Lynch Abbattista Consulting Engineers, P.C. Hawthorne, New York Lighting Consultant Goldstick Lighting Design White Plains, New York General Contractor Bedell Associates, Inc. Mount Vernon, New York Photographer ESTO Photographics Mamaroneck, New York Completion Date: 2003 Number of Courtrooms: Not applicable Construction Cost: $11.0 million Type of Court: Moot Court, Training Facility Building Area: 28,000 BGSF Finance Method: Dormitory Authority, State of New York / Bond Delivery Method: Single Prime Contract Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

203

Niagara Falls Municipal Complex • Niagara Falls, New York Situated in a once desolate location on Main Street, the new state-ofthe-art Niagara Falls Municipal Complex consolidates municipal functions into one complex. The facility is intended to be a catalyst to attract new business and rejuvenate the once thriving business district corridor.

In an area of urban blight, the building’s site and design incorporates a sense of place, openness, and commitment to the City. It is reinforced by the way the complex connects to the urban fabric. Public gathering spaces overlook the adjacent park and provide a feeling of openness.

Located on a two-acre brownfield site, the building is divided into a three-story city court facility wing and a two-story police headquarters. The two separate functions are joined by a two-story entrance and lobby. The building’s architecture is primarily brick construction to embody the rich Niagara Falls masonry history. The facility entrance includes a symbolic bridge structure reminiscent of the historical Roebling Suspension bridge. Taking advantage of the site’s angular shape and concerns of the city’s maintenance cost, the landscaping is modest with a simple lawn serving as a public gathering space for special functions.

Other program spaces include security queuing and screening, secure judges’ entrance, four modern courtrooms, judges’ chambers, jury deliberation suites, hearing room, jury assembly space, children’s center, police dispatch, briefing/ training conference room, CSI labs, emergency response spaces, vehicle sally port, holding cells, specialty vehicle garages, a five-lane indoor firing range, and staff and public parking. The jury assembly area is a multipurpose space that is also used

204

for staff meetings, training, and community functions. The courts share holding facilities with police lock-up reducing cost, staffing, and transportation time while improving safety.

LEED certification became a client requirement late in the project; however, because of the LEED strategies already incorporated into the design, the project was flexible enough to accommodate this goal.

Owner

City of Niagara Falls Niagara Falls, New York

Civil Engineer C&S Engineering, Inc. Buffalo, New York

Traffic Consultant Urban Engineers of New York, Inc. Buffalo, New York

Architect of Record HOK New York, New York

Structural Engineer Siracuse Engineers, LLP Buffalo, New York

Construction Management Lauer-Manguso & Associates Buffalo, New York

Landscape Architect HOK New York, New York

Mechanical Engineer Robson Woese, Inc. Syracuse, New York

Acoustics / A/V / Security / 911 Communications Professional Systems Engineering, LLC Lansdale, Pennsylvania General Contractor Ciminelli Development Company, Inc. Williamsville, New York Photographer James Cavanaugh Tonawanda, New York Completion Date: 2009 Number of Courtrooms: 4 Construction Cost: $ 31.4 million Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Traffic Building Area: 133,321 BGSF; 79,613 NAA Finance Method: Lease Purchase; Developer Financed Delivery Method: Design / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Certified

205

Queens Family Court and City Agency Facility • Jamaica, New York The Queens Family Court and City Agency Facility faces the historic Rufus King Park and the elevated Long Island Railroad completing the wall of residential and institutional buildings framing the park while maintaining an appropriate civic presence. The building has two entrances leading to a common lobby and security screening checkpoint. Two spacious waiting rooms on the ground level serve court intake functions and the Assignment Court; a child drop-off center, security rooms, and various offices are located nearby. The courthouse includes 17 courts layered on nearly identical second, third, and fourth floors; half of the courtrooms are on the perimeter of the building and lit by large windows. The fifth floor is reserved for a collegial suite of judges’ chambers and court attorney offices, the offices of the Clerk of Court, adoptions, and the parts office. The basement houses reserved judges’ parking, holding cells, detainee elevators serving the courtrooms, a central records room, and mechanical spaces.

The Family Court is notable for both the number of daily visitors and the stressful nature of the

206

proceedings. Clarity of circulation and the quality of the waiting spaces outside the courtrooms are paramount. Vertical circulation via escalators are located in a central sky-lit five-story atrium that brings light into the buildinging’s central circulation zone and contains a major art installation. The waiting areas on each floor overlook the park to the north and have distant views to the south offering the public a calm and uplifting environment. In its transparency,

the building presents its inner life to the larger community. The courtrooms are unpretentious in scale with large windows providing ample natural light.

This project’s attention to light and views responds to one of the main challenges of designing a family court: providing a friendly, sunny waiting environment is a counterpoint to the stressful experience inherent to family court cases.

Owner

City of New York Department of Citywide Administrative Services New York, New York

Civil Engineer Munoz Engineering New York, New York

Architect of Record Pei Cobb Freed & Partners Architects, LLP New York, New York

Structural Engineer WSP Cantor Seinuk New York, New York Cosentini Associates Chicago, Illinois

Associate Architect Gruzen Samton Architects, LLP New York, New York

Acoustical Consultant Cerami & Associates, Inc. New York, New York

Landscape Architect Mathews Nielsen, P.C. New York, New York

General Contractor LA Wenger Contracting W. Babylon, New York Photographer Jeff Goldberg / Esto Photographics, Inc. Mamaroneck, New York

Completion Date: 2003 Number of Courtrooms: 16 Courtrooms, 1 Assignment Room, 8 Hearing Rooms Construction Cost: $59.3 million Type of Court: Domestic, Juvenile, Family Building Area: 300,000 BGSF; 213,000 NAA Finance Method: Dormitory Authority, State of New York / Bond Delivery Method: Single Prime Contract, New York State Prime Contractor w/ Construction Manager Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Certified

207

Seattle Justice Center • Seattle, Washington, The Seattle Justice Center was designed to replace Seattle’s aging Public Safety Building. The City wanted a dignified and transparent 100-year building that could house Seattle’s courts and police headquarters. The 300,000 square feet of courts and police headquarters office space are integrated into the dense, three-quarter acre in downtown Seattle. A strong desire for separate identities for the police and the courts yields a structure with two different parts: a glass courts portion and a masonry police portion. The transparent curtain wall equates both accessibility and the intrinsic search for clarity and truth in our justice system. The stone façade reflects the strength and tradition inherent in the police force’s mission of fostering public safety.

The City of Seattle wanted a sustainable building with green features evident to the general public.

The most visible of these strategies is the double-skin glazed thermal buffer allowing the public face of the courts to be transparent while protecting the interior from excessive solar heat and glare. Special mechanical features include energy-conserving devices built into the heating and ventilation systems, airflow handling on a floor-by-floor basis, and utility submeters tracking gas, water, and electricity usage. Energy costs have been reduced by 32 percent making it possible for the City to receive utility incentives and credits. The project boasts many superlatives as Seattle’s first sustainable mandated project, first LEED Silver building, and first green roof system.

The building logic was to place the most highly used functions lower in the building and closer to the entrance. On the building’s top floor, the jury room features high ceilings and expansive glazing reflects the value the city places on public service.

208

Owner

City of Seattle Seattle, Washington Architect of Record NBBJ Seattle, Washington Landscape Architect Gustafson Guthrie Nichol, Ltd. Seattle, Washington Civil Engineer SvR Design Company Seattle, Washington Structural Engineer Magnusson Klemencic Associates Seattle, Washington Mechanical Engineer CDi Lynnwood, Washington Electrical Abacus Engineered Systems Dallas, Texas Acoustical & Audio / Video The Greenbusch Group Seattle, Washington General Contractor Hoffman Construction Group Bellevue, Washington Photographer Sean Airhart Christian Richters Completion Date: 2002 Number of Courtrooms: 11 Construction Cost: $40.4 million (Municipal Court portion) Type of Court: Domestic, Traffic, Community Court Building Area: Municipal Court 163,723 BGSF; 98,624 NAA Finance Method: Appropriation Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Silver

209

Wayne County Municipal Court • Wooster, Ohio.

To better serve the people of Wayne County, the county commissioners consolidated the Municipal Court into one facility on the empty lot immediately west of the existing Justice Center, which houses the Sheriff’s Department and County Jail.

The Municipal Court building contains three courtrooms, judges’ chambers, prosecutor, public defender, Clerk of Courts, home arrest, probation, and court administration. A bridge connecting the Justice Center to the Court provides for the convenient transfer and arraignment of detainees in the jail. Secure parking is provided as part of the existing Justice Center’s secure parking area.

To appropriately emphasize its presence and identity within Wayne County, the Court was designed as an honorific object mirroring the footprint and massing of the Justice Center. Like the Justice Center, the Court steps back on its site creating a plaza that, along with its massing, distinguishes the building from its context. The Municipal Court harmonizes with the Justice Center’s massing and envelope; however, where the Justice Center asserts its identity as a jail, the Court is identified by contrasting materials and

210

traditional architectural elements. This contrast is most evident in the rotunda, rendered in glass and aluminum, which conveys the administration of justice in an open society. It is also evident in the vehicular portico, a welcoming feature appropriated from traditional architecture.

Within the building, the spaces have been arranged hierarchically around the rotunda to reinforce the notion of the centrality of justice, while the interior finishes bring a traditional courthouse appearance to an otherwise contemporary interior.

Owner

Wayne County Commissioners Wooster, Ohio

Architect of Record Strollo Architects Youngstown, Ohio Landscape Architect John A. Sybrant & Associates Youngstown, Ohio Civil / Structural / Mechanical / Engineer Korda Columbus, Ohio General Contractor Bogner Construction Company Wooster, Ohio Photographer Infinity Studio Cleveland, Ohio Completion Date: 2002 Number of Courtrooms: 3 Construction Cost: $7.7 million Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Small Claims, Traffic Building Area: 50,585 BGSF; 31,825 NAA Finance Method: General Obligation Bonds and County General Funds Delivery Method: Multiple Prime Contract Type of Construction: New, Addition LEED Certificate: None

211

International

Al-Farwania and Al Jahra Court Complexes • Al-Reggae and Al-Jahra Areas of Kuwait Fentress Architects, the American designers of Kuwait’s Al-Farwania and Al-Jahra Court Complexes, had the exceptional opportunity to study and design distinct features of a judicial system different from the U.S., while capturing universal themes of jurisprudence. Highly efficient spatial relationships, the latest technology, and a reinterpretation of traditional Kuwaiti architectural elements are combined to fulfill that ambitious goal.

The walls create a strong connection between inside and outside, offers excellent views, filters harsh sunlight, and expresses the transparency of the business conducted inside. In both court buildings, visitors enter a finelyappointed grand interior public hall that is the symbolic and functional focus of the courthouse. This atrium immediately establishes clear, intuitive wayfinding throughout the court complex.

The two complexes contain 80 courtrooms; each with accompanying administrative and governmental services. Site limitations required the construction of high-rise courthouses that have become a new prototype for Kuwaiti courthouses. Kuwaiti courtrooms are significantly smaller − each case being adjudicated by a threejudge panel but not juries – thus, more courtrooms could be accommodated in these complexes.

The large administrative departments − those with the greatest public contact − are the first and simplest to access with the circulation system divided into three parts: public, private, and secure.

Judges have a Judicial Lounge on each floor which houses the restrooms and tea service. Each courtroom has an adjacent support room for robing, deliberations, and meetings. Judges have secure parking with a private passage allowing judicial officers to arrive at their lounge and use robing facilities and conference rooms without encountering visitors. A shared judicial library and judicial dining area are located on the 16th floor.

Majestic public steps draw visitors to the entries with soaring glass walls intricately designed with local vernacular-derived geometric patterns.

214

A natural stacked ventilation system with deeply recessed openings in the plinth of each atrium and horizontal and vertical sun shades at the upper levels reduce heat loads and are some of the strategies to create a sustainable building. Large canopies at each entry provide shade and incorporate photovoltaic cells, visually apparent on the exterior, to educate and promote sustainable building to the public.

Owner

Ministry of Public Works Kuwait City, Kuwait Architect of Record Pan Arab Consulting Engineers Hawalli, Kuwait Design Architect Fentress Architects Denver, Colorado Landscape Architect Pan Arab Consulting Engineers Hawalli, Kuwait Civil / Structural / Mechanical Engineer Pan Arab Consulting Engineers Hawalli, Kuwait General Contractor Not selected Completion Date: 2014 Project Cost: Undetermined Number of Courtrooms: 160 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Drug, Small Claims, Probate, Traffic, Appellate Building Area: 1,360,000 BGSF; 1,020,000 NAA Finance Method: Funded by Ministry of Public Works Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Silver

215

CITATION

Calgary Courts Centre • Calgary, Alberta, Canada The Calgary Courts Centre is a competition winning design/build scheme featuring two glass and concrete towers of 24 and 20 stories joined by a 26-storey public atrium on a tight downtown site. The building expresses two branches of the court system: the Provincial Court of Alberta and the Federal Court of Queen’s Bench.

The Calgary Courts Centre allows each branch to maintain their individual identity while sharing the same public circulation system and other common facilities such as judicial dining services, libraries, and prisoner holding areas. At 73 courtrooms, it is the largest courthouse facility in Canada and contains one of North America’s most extensive ranges of courtroom types including High Security, Jury, Hearing, Family, Juvenile, Commercial, Ceremonial, Civil, and Aboriginal.

The three greatest design challenges were: avoid problems with stack effect in one of the largest cold climate atriums in the world; detail for differential movement between the three primary vertical tower elements; and maintain building quality within the fixed price and schedule commitments in light of hyper escalation of the cost of steel.

A desire for openness and transparency underlies the design approach. The complex achieves a high level of security in an unobtrusive manner while letting in natural light and ensuring views to the surrounding city. The project was driven by a lean and efficient mandate given its initial Design/ Build/Finance/Operate procurement process. This included a design allowing for future flexibility with the transformation of public registry floors into future courtroom floors, as well as one of the most sophisticated electronic docketing and wired courtrooms systems in the world.

216

Jury Comment The Calgary Courts Centre in Alberta Canada is unique with its dual massing strategy accommodating two distinct courts systems. The two vertical courtroom volumes are connected by a spectacular 26-storey public atrium expressing both the Provincial Court of Alberta and the Federal Court of Queen’s Bench. The jurors initially discussed the somewhat corporate image of the 73 courtroom facility and rapidly concluded that the result was indeed an appropriate and refreshing expression of openness and transparency in the very tight urban setting. The project is the largest courthouse facility in Canada.

The connecting atrium is an exceptional expression of the

technology of vertical circulation. All of the elevators are encased in glass with the mechanical technology exposed to the connecting walkway and clearly visible from the public entry and every level of the soaring atrium. Despite the public access and openness of the atrium, the facility utilizes advanced security systems in an unobtrusive manner to support the critical functions of the courts, judges, and judicial administrative staff. The sophisticated electronic docketing and courtroom technology is reported to be the latest and most effective available. The Courts Centre also features many aspects of sustainable architecture as a high performance building. The long term planning also accounted for future flexibility as the public registry floors can be transformed into future courtrooms.

217

218

Owner

Province of Alberta Calgary, Alberta, Canada Architect of Record Kasian Architecture Interior Design & Planning, Ltd. Calgary, Alberta, Canada Partner or Joint Venture NORR Limited Architects and Engineers Toronto, Ontario, Canada Landscape Architect Stantec (in association with Cornelia Oberlander) Calgary, Alberta, Canada Civil / Structural Engineer Stantec Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Ground Floor

Mechanical Engineer Hemisphere Engineering, Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Completion Date: 2008

Electrical Engineer Stebnicki and Associates, Ltd. Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Number of Courtrooms: 73

Construction Cost: $ 263.8 million USD

Type of Court: Criminal, High Security, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Small Claims, Traffic, Probate, Aboriginal

Design Consultant Carlos Ott Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Building Area: 1,100,000 BGSF; 804,000 NAA

Courthouse Consultant AECOM Design Coral Gables, Florida

Finance Method: Government Funded

General Contractor Cana Construction Limited Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Type of Construction: New

Delivery Method: Design / Build

LEED Certificate: Silver (pending)

Photographer Robert Lemermeyer Photography, Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Tenth Floor

219

New Supreme Court Building • Singapore The New Supreme Court Building is a nine-story building organized to reflect the hierarchies of the judicial system. The building’s architectural vocabulary and the design of its public spaces are intended to convey qualities representative of Singapore’s legal system as well as the image of dignity, history, judicial symbolism, transparency, accessibility, and the enforcement of justice.

Formally, it is articulated as a series of identifiable blocks cut through with public arcades and passageways, knitting the building into the surrounding city fabric. The civil and criminal courts are located on the lower floors. The Court of Appeal, Singapore’s highest court, is symbolically raised above the other courtrooms. It occupies a disclike form at the top of the building incorporating a public viewing platform that offers a dramatic panorama across the city. A central atrium forms the processional circulation route through the building and brings daylight down through all the public spaces.

The building accommodates 12 civil courts, eight criminal courts, three appellate courts, and accompanying suites of ancillary facilities. Each courtroom is located within a court block that also contains a hearing chamber, a court conference room,

220

and two witness rooms which serve as holding areas for witnesses. A vulnerable witness room is located at level one to allow vulnerable witnesses to testify through video camera without having to appear in the open court.

In addition to the court blocks, eight registrars’ chambers, where a host of pre- and post-trial applications are heard, have been clustered on level two. The registrars’ chambers are flanked by the Legal Registry, a one-stop service area for all administrative matters pertaining to legal documentation and submissions.

The building façade employs a palette of high-quality materials with translucent laminated stoneglass; it appears solid but allows light to filter through by day and emits a warm glow by night. A range of passive climate-control devices, including shading to the east and west facades to protect the office spaces from direct sunlight, are incorporated. Roof gardens for the office blocks are also designed at podium level keeping with Singapore’s garden city philosophy. The roofs are planted with trees to create a continuous blanket of greenery to create a public promenade.

Owner

Government of Republic of Singapore Architect of Record Foster + Partners Hong Cong CPG Consultants, Pte. Ltd. Singapore Landscape Architect Tierra Design Civil / Structural / Mechanical Engineer CPG Consultants, Pte. Ltd. Singapore General Contractor IRE Sato Kogyo Joint Venture Completion Date: 2005 Construction Cost: $ 208.0 million (Singapore Dollars) Number of Courtrooms: 23 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil Building Area: 58,103 square meters (625,415 square feet) Finance Method: Government Funded Delivery Method: Unknown Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: Designed to LEED but not submitted

221

Renfrew County Courthouse • Pembroke, Ontario, Canada The new Renfrew County Courthouse consolidates the Superior and Ontario courts from four separate locations into a single facility. It houses six courtrooms including the restored heritage courtroom, a child-friendly courtroom specifically designed to meet the needs of child victims and witnesses, two settlement rooms, two jury deliberation rooms, a motion room, crown attorney offices, courts administration, victim witness services offices, local law association offices, external agencies’ day offices, and holding facilities.

The project is located on a prominent downtown site and involves the renovation and addition to an existing complex of historic justice buildings dating back to the 1860’s. Rather than diminishing the original architecture, the Renfrew County Courthouse project enhances the 1860’s landmark courthouse and reveals aspects of the adjacent historic registry and jail.

Two deferential wings are set back on either side of the restored courthouse, reinforcing its prominence along the main street.

222

The new forecourt landscape focuses on the ceremonial door of the historic courthouse, while a new main entrance addressing security and barrier free accessibility needs, is created to the side. The entry leads into a two-storey light-filled atrium wrapping the original courthouse exposing the previously concealed jail, and presents these weathered stone buildings in contrast to the contemporary materials and detailing of the new space.

The original spaces such as the restored heritage courtroom, maintain their original purposes where possible. Others are given

new lives: cells are reused as interview rooms, the registry building is reused as a law library, and its front façade becomes an artifact displayed within the two-storey lawyer’s lounge. The original jail walls are exposed in several courtrooms and reappear in the holding areas and other back of house spaces.

The interplay of old and new elements embodies not only the weight of history and precedent attached to Ontario’s judicial system but also the concept of law as a living entity that has evolved over centuries reflecting the values of the society it serves and governs.

Owner

Ontario Realty Corporation (on behalf of the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure) Toronto, Ontario, Canada Architect of Record NORR Limited Architects and Engineers Toronto, Ontario, Canada Landscape Architect Envision Toronto, Ontario, Canada Structural / Mechanical Engineer NORR Limited Architects and Engineers Toronto, Ontario, Canada Heritage Preservation Consultant Andre Scheinman Kingston, Ontario, Canada General Contractor M. Sullivan & Son Limited Arnprior, Ontario, Canada Photographer Steven Evans Photography, Inc. Toronto, Ontario, Canada Completion Date: 2006 Construction Cost: $15.2 million (USD) Number of Courtrooms: 6 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Domestic, Juvenile, Small Claims Building Area: 75,470 BGSF; 41,059 NAA Finance Method: General Government Revenues Delivery Method: Design / Bid / Build Type of Construction: Addition, Renovation LEED Certificate: None

223

Roma Mitchell Commonwealth Law Courts, Adelaide • Adelaide, Australia The Roma Mitchell Commonwealth Law Centre building performs an important symbolic function with respect to the history of Australia’s democratic system. The design respects the status of four separate jurisdictions: the High Court, Federal Court, Family Court, and Federal Magistrates’ Court, and presents a unified whole. The law court is expected to uphold the law, demonstrate independence, and reflect the sovereignty of the people. Accountability, transparency, and accessibility were key characteristics within the design creating a welcoming feel to the general public.

Housed within 23,000 square metres (236,806 square feet), the building includes 22 courtrooms, judges’ chambers, library, administration, and registry. Two six-storey south facing glass atria provide the changing qualities of natural light. Seven of the courtrooms are contained within the opal vessel of the building; its patina copper skin identifying it as the ceremonial part of the court. An indigenous court is integrated within the ceremonial courts designed in the “round” to resemble the indigenous process of meeting in a circle on natural ground.

Opportunities for natural light and external views of the Adelaide Hills, Gulf St Vincent, and the central business district are shared by all through the use of atria and windows to every courtroom – replacing the traditional introverted courtroom with a new generation of extroverted spaces.

The dignity of the building speaks of its importance while allowing its users and occupants to go about their business calmly and efficiently. The design embodies an egalitarian expression of civic pride and provides a physical expression

224

of a diverse yet united Australian culture. The design reflects a uniquely South Australian identity and strongly relates to its site and context on Victoria Square; the

centre of the city’s court and legal precinct. The building is flexible, efficient, and functional providing a safe and refreshing environment for all occupants, users, and visitors.

Owner

Department of Finance and Administration Adelaide, South Australia, Australia Architect of Record HASSELL Adelaide, South Australia, Australia Partner or Joint Venture Attorney General’s Department Adelaide, South Australia, Australia Landscape Architect HASSELL Adelaide, South Australia, Australia Civil / Structural / Mechanical Engineer Aurecon Melbourne, New South Wales, Australia Electrical, Comms, Fire, Hydraulics Aurecon Melbourne, New South Wales, Australia Court Technology VIPAC Adelaide, South Australia, Australia General Contractor Hansen Yuncken Adelaide, South Australia, Australia Photographer Mr John Gollings Gollings Photography, Pty. Ltd. Completion Date: 2006 Construction Cost: $92.0 million (Australian) Number of Courtrooms: 22 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil, Family, Appellate Building Area: 247,569 NAA Finance Method: Commonwealth Funded Delivery Method: Lump Sum Contract Type of Construction: New LEED Certificate: None

225

Victorian County Court • Melbourne, Victoria, Australia The Victorian County Court is located on an opposing corner to the 19th Century neo-classical Supreme Court. The new building mass reflects the four-storey plinth height of the existing Supreme Court and addresses planning and urban design considerations while ensuring that the raised dome of the Supreme Court remains visible in the views along Williams Street.

Defined by the city grid, the new plinth engages the corner at street level while the central tower containing jury rooms, courtrooms, and public galleries is stepped back into the site achieving a distinctive form. Courtrooms as objects are given a special identity in a modern metal shaft of 10 levels, while the Justices’ chambers occupy the lower masonry base.

Externally, the front canopy is known colloquially as “la guillotine.” The architectural skin is represented as a series of folded etched zinc, anodized aluminum, or white polished pre-cast concrete forms. The cantilevered entrance canopy and vertical signature valence are suspended some four levels above the corner pavement.

The tower is a sculpted metal and glass container. The plinth is a punched-opening box of white concrete. Within the building, a number of vertical slots allow top light to enter the lower mass.

Deeply cut corridors of light enhance circulation for the central blocks of courtrooms and other functional areas. These main corridors that penetrate the plinth are lined with a brilliant blue color or zinc and mirrors that are folded to catch the sunlight.

The building houses 46 civil and criminal courts, judicial chambers for 55 judges, a library and conference center, jury facilities, a

226

custodial center, and administrative offices. All courts receive natural light through a central light well that penetrates the tower or through perimeter windows.

At first floor level, a public gallery overlooking the city receives visitors and appellants and directs them to escalators or

lifts for vertical access to courts.

This public gallery contains artist Colin Lancely’s abstract image of the figure of justice, a translucent glass work seven metres high and five metres wide. It is a contrasting piece to the plate and cast aluminum figure by sculptor William Eicholtz located above the principal entrance.

Owner

Mechanical Engineer WSP Lincolne Scott Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Architect of Record Daryl Jackson Architects, Pty. Ltd. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Lighting Vision Lighting Design

Victorian County Court Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Partner or Joint Venture Sinclair Knight Mertz & Lyons Architects Structural Engineer Kuter Consulting Engineers / Meinhardt Yarra, Victoria, Australia

Acoustic Bassett Consulting Engineers External Sculpture Mr. William Eicholtz Zinc Mural Australian Print Workshop

Glass Artwork Mr. Colin Lanceley General Contractor Multiplex North Carlton, Victoria, Australia Photographer Mr. Trevor Mein – Meinphoto Clifton Hill, Victoria, Australia Completion Date: 2002 Construction Cost: $140.0 million, AUD Number of Courtrooms: 46 Type of Court: Criminal, Civil Building Area: 48,000 square meters (516,557 square feet) Finance Method: Private / Public Partnership Delivery Method: Unknown Type of Construction: New, Renovation LEED Certificate: None

227

Index of Architects AECOM: 61, 69, 99, 101, 129

Gruen Associates: 5

Anderson Mason Dale: 73

Gruzen Samton Architects, LLP: 207

Architects Hawaii, Ltd.: 185

GRW: 71, 89, 153

Architectural Studio, The: 107

Harold Massop Associates Architects: 113

Arquitectonica: 83

Hartman-Cox Architects-Design Architect: 111

Ashley McGraw Architects, P.C.: 137

HASSELL: 225

Attorney General’s Department: 225

HDA Architects: 181

Barge Waggoner Sumner and Cannon: 189

HDR Architecture, Inc.: 19, 79, 117, 126

Beverly Prior Associates: 175

HDR, Inc.: 67

Beyer Blinder Belle Architects & Planners, LLP: 37

Heery International: 11, 13, 21, 91, 103, 139

Bostwick Design Partnership: 115

HOK: 93, 109, 115, 121, 147, 157, 165, 171, 175, 183, 193, 205

CBT Architects: 42

Jeter, Cook & Jepson Architects: 179

CPG Consultants, Pte. Ltd.: 221

Julie Snow Architects, Inc.: 31

Daryl Jackson Architects, Pty. Ltd.: 227

Kaeyer, Garment & Davidson Architects & Engineers, P.C.: 203

Design Group: 83

Kallmann KcKinnell & Wood Architects: 79, 126

DeWolff Partnership Architects, LLP: 45

Kasian Architecture Interior Design & Planning, Ltd.: 219

Dick & Fritsche Design Group: 183

KBJ Architect: 13

DJ Design, Inc.: 101

Klipp: 113

DLR Group: 63, 73

Koetter Kim & Associates: 15

Downing Architects, P.C.: 27

KPS Group, Inc.: 131

Farewell Mills Gatsch Architects, LLC: 77

Leers Weinzapfel Associates Architects, Inc.: 21, 141, 163

Fentress Architects: 53, 105, 133, 187, 215

Leonard Parker Associates/Durrant Group, The: 27

Finegold Alexander + Associates, Inc.: 81

LSW Engineers: 177

Foster + Partners: 221

Mahan Rykiel Associates: 129

Fuller and D’Angelo, P.C.: 149

Mark Cavagnero Associates: 119

Garment & Davidson Architects & Engineers: 203

Mitchell | Giurgola Architects, LLP: 201

Gerson Overstreet: 175

Mohagen Hansen: 31

Goody Clancy: 95

Moore Ruble Yudell Architects & Planners: 5

Gould Evans + AECOM: 123

MRT Architects: 177

Gresham Smith and Partners: 99

Nacht & Lewis Architects: 161

228

NBBJ: 9, 25, 209 NORR Limited Architects and Engineers: 219, 223 O’Brien/Atkins Associates, PA: 165 PageSoutherlandPage: 23 Pan Arab Consulting Engineers: 215 Parsons/HDR: 123 Pei Cobb Freed & Partners Architects, LLP: 149, 207 Perez & Perez Architects Planners, Inc.: 193 Perkins Eastman: 59 Perry Dean Rogers | Partners Architects: 143 PGAL: 39 Pizzuti Solutions, LLC: 83 Polshek Partnership Architects: 159 Post Architects: 131 PSA-Dewberry: 15, 181, 189 Ray Greco Architects: 29, 31

RicciGreene Associates: 35, 83, 97, 107, 111, 113, 135, 137, 159, 179 Schenkel & Schultz Architects: 126 Schooley Caldwell Associates: 47 Shepley Bulfinch Richardson & Abbott, Inc.: 169 Sherman Carter Barnhart Architects, PSC: 111 Sinclair Knight Mertz & Lyons Architects: 227 Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP: 155 Smith McCrary Architects, Inc.: 69 Strollo Architects: 211 Tate Snyder Kimsey Architects: 67, 196 TENG & Associates, Inc.: 29 Trivers Associates: 49 VITETTA: 51 Ware Bonsall Architects: 151 Wold Architects and Engineers: 167

Rees Associates, Inc.: 86

229

In 1971, the National Center for State Courts forged a partnership with state and local courts to improve the administration of justice. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and other judicial leaders envisioned an organization that would serve as a central resource for the nation’s state, local, and territorial courts. Today, the National Center for State Courts stands as the justice system’s premier source for technical consulting, facility planning, education and training, research, technology, knowledge development and information sharing, and hands-on assistance for the courts.

Retrospective

of

Courthouse Design

2001-2010