Over the past week one of the ideas I have been focusing on is putting my building in the site and how it should react with the immediate context and how it will reach out to the overall community. I will focus next on the development of the corner, and investigate how to make the court more inviting while also developing a connection with the flux space I am dealing with in my design and the community at large.
This past Wednesday I attended the Charlotte Mecklenburg county courthouse. Getting there was a journey within itself. I probably drove around the blocks surrounding the courthouse at least twice before finding parking deck that was still a several minute walk from the courthouse itself. Upon arrival, I went into the building through a side entrance. I say side entrance because the main entrance is at the corner of the building. I entered the building and suddenly was at security. It was not implemented within the design of the building and was very close to the entrance. As a side note, when I was leaving, exiting the same way I entered, there were several people in line and the line extended out the door. Granted the exterior portion outside of the door was covered, I do not think that people should have to wait outside just to get into a building. Especially a building where in most cases they are trying to put something behind them and move on with that part of there lives.
The first set of cases that I witnessed were in criminal court. It was a very fast paced event. There was much more activity going on than I thought there would ever be. The observation area was almost completely full. There were lawyers sitting where the jury would be located in a jury trial, waiting for there case or cases, I assume. The criminal defense lawyer represented three or four people one after the other. I was not aware that this happened. She, the lawyer, had a rather large stack of folders in front of her and every time another person would come out of criminal holding, she would just take another folder off the stack and quickly familiarize herself with it. Although most all of the cases were for probation violation, that is still a lot of case work to go through.
I then visited family court. It was on the top level of the court which made sense due to most of the matters going on there would be of more of the personal type. There were paintings on the walls and places to sit outside of the courtrooms. With all of this false sense of security for the children I still felt very uncomfortable inside of that courtroom. It was the only trial that I saw witnesses called, and I thought that it was interesting, but just to think that a family was being separated right there in front of me was in many ways very unsettling. The father was representing himself and the mother had a lawyer. The kids were not not there but people from both sides were called out of the observation/seating area to state and claim how good the respective parents were to and with the kids. Overall, being in there was a good learning experience but I won’t be going back.
The final courtroom I visited was the civil court where at the time the judge was dealing with matters of broken leases and money that was due to the landlords or owners of the property. This was very fast paced. The judge would swear the people in, take a quick look at the lease, find out the amount owed, and just like that it was over almost before it started. There was very little debate from the people being charged. It was as if they new what they owed, but they just wanted to drag it out as long as possible before they had to give up their money.
Court was and wasn’t what I expected it to be. Obviously there was no high drama or enthusiastic questioning, that would have been mentioned, but as I had hoped, justice was being served and people were having ‘their day in court.’ With all that happens in the world around us it is good to know that at the heart of the judicial system, people are doing what they can to make things right. As one last side note, I unfortunately never saw or heard a gavel.
This week I moved from the courtroom set and delved into the program and looked at how to work the circulation of the private (judge), the public (us), and the in-custody defendant. I began the week with a tower approach but as I understood the program more and how I wanted the circulation to work it morphed into more of a bar design. Through sketches and models I began to work with the necessary space-relationships to see how the ideas of open and continuous movement worked/didn’t work through my models and sketches.
These begin look at the paired courtset plan from last week’s model.
The courtset begins to look at private v public and the spatial relationship between 2 courtrooms.
The paired courtrooms try to focus on ‘movement’ and a separation of private v public.
A separation of private and public is reached but is there still the idea of ‘movement’ present?
My court visit started with difficulty. I’m not sure if it is something inherent in cities and their one-way streets, but it was quite difficult to figure where I needed to go to get to the courthouse; I kept ‘just’ missing it due to one way streets and ‘no turns.’ I ended up parking next to the bus depot, which gave me a good idea of how people who would need to use public transportation would get to the courthouse. Once I was finally past the security, it just a matter of deciding which court to start with. This proved harder and easier than I expected. Easier because I was able to walk into whichever courtroom I wanted, but harder because, even though to docket was posted outside each door, I had no idea what to expect on the other side of the door. The first time, going into criminal court, I was relieved to find myself in a buffer area where I had to go though another door to get into the actual courtroom. The doors themselves were very imposing; extra-wide and pretty heavy, it definitely made an impression as I made my way into each courtroom.
The first court I visited was criminal court. This was the most busy of the courts I visited, with people walking in and out on the both the private and ‘in-custody’ circulation sides. The courtroom was mostly square, with the door ‘in-custody’ defendants used at a slight angle away from the public, and facing the judge. This court was quite overwhelming as my first courtroom on a number of levels: the public benches were mostly full so I had to look to find a place before sitting, there were many attorneys sitting around waiting for their case to come before the judge (I was initially thrown off because some were sitting in the jury box), the typing of the court clerk was quite loud and constant as case after case was being presented, and finally I had major difficulty understanding the judge and hearing whoever was speaking from the counselors’ tables as they were facing away from the public, standing (because the cases were being moved through so quickly), and not speaking into the microphones. Along with that, people were moving in and out on the public side, talking, and someone’s phone even went off-the bailiff just asked him to step outside.
On the opposite end of the criminal court was the family courtroom. The procession up to it was quite different and gave an overall different feel before I even stepped into the courtroom. I had to go to the top floor of the courthouse and when I stepped onto the floor it was much quieter There was carpet in the main hall/circulation that kept things quiet, there were fewer people milling about, there were benches along some of the walls that allowed for someone to sit and not be seen and there was artwork on the walls. While it was quieter, it was not unwelcoming. The images and paint colors on the walls were fun to look at and interesting, but there was still that sense of “what’s behind the door?” that felt more consequential due to it being family court and knowing that emotions were potentially running high on the other side of the door. The case I saw was a very low key case, but very interesting as the father was self-representing while the mother had a lawyer. They were figuring out child custody and I got to see witnesses being questioned by both the father and the mother’s lawyer: it was very interesting to see how each did it differently and how, as the father kept leading the witnesses with his questions, the lawyer kept asking the judge to stop him. It was very interesting to the see how we got different pictures of the witnesses by how they were questioned and what picture was formed by the type and direction of the questions. This courtroom was octagonal so the public was more ‘involved’ in the case just by line of sight and because the witnesses were being called from the public seating.
Finally, I visited a civil courtroom-muuuuuch smaller (even the ceiling was lower)-and watched proceedings for renter’s who broke their lease agreement. This was interesting because the judge had a lot of attitude and seemed quite brusque, but at the same time, when a young man had been unable to pay his rent due to outside issues and his landlord still would not take his rent, she gave him advice and hope (which was more moving as she had been very removed from all the other cases).
All in all it was a very interesting day, it changed my romantic ideas of court and reaffirmed some others but one thing that really stood out was the use of daylight inthe courtroom-or lack of it. Each courtroom I visited had a pretty large window that either looked outside or in the case of the civil court which was on the lower level, the blinds were pulled and most people probably didn’t even notice it. It gave the courtroom a timeless feel as we had no idea where the sun was, but as a designer, I was just very disheartened and disappointed.
Exploring the second concept of the courtroom as a block volume led to some interesting discovery. This scheme would have led to a successful courthouse, but the concept of the line or ribbon courthouse developed a more successful form. The conceptual model study was worth while and created an nice schematic study of program and asymmetric pairing for a court room. These studies may lead to a different design decision further along in the full process of the courthouse.
So like many people who aren’t entirely familiar with the courthouse system I had a certain stereotype in my head while walking in the door. That quickly went away after about two minutes in the courthouse. When first entering the Mecklenburg County Courthouse I was automatically directed towards security along with most everyone else. I expected security to be there, just wasn’t sure as to how close to the main entrance it would be. From there I proceeded to find the clerk of court to find information about the trails going on that day. Come to find out that many of the clerks are located in different places throughout the courthouse, which made it very difficult to find out useful information. Once I figured out which courtrooms were holding what type of trails I decided to sit in on three courtroom proceedings; each different from the next and showing me great insight.
The first courtroom was a magistrate courtroom and to me was very similar to a “cattle call”. When I first arrived I noticed the judge was seated at his bench with three clerks to his left and a TV screen mounted on the wall to his right. It was fairly quite in the courtroom except for the noise of multiple piles of papers being shuffled about. A few minutes later a video feed came on the TV and sound came through the speaker/microphone system. On the TV screen were prisoners in what I presumed to be a nearby jail holding area. Then in a very quick manner the judge began assigning court dates, bail amounts, and pleas front prisoners. The judge even had the privilege of informing some inmates that their case was dripped and were free to go. Surprising to me was how light hearted the judge seemed. He even cracked a couple jokes during this process. Two inmates were escorted into the courtroom for the setting of court dates and bail amounts. This was interesting because I began to wonder why some were physically there and other had to be video conferenced in.
The courtroom itself was what I had expected it to be housing a judge, clerks, attorney tables, an unused jury section, and public seating. The circulation of the courtroom was directed towards the exterior, mainly because the “bar” extended all the way across the length of the courtroom. The ceiling was pronounced downward around the judge and attorneys much like a traditional courtroom, this is turn made the courtroom feel more intimate with the lower ceilings.
The second courtroom was another magistrate courtroom, however this courtroom was different in many ways compared to the previous one. One of the major differences was there was more people. There were more lawyers, more bailiffs, more public, and Mecklenburg police officers in the jury section (the arresting officers). One of the first things that I noticed was that the judge was not at his bench; therefore I assumed court was not in session, wrong assumption. A bailiff politely asked my colleague and I too not talk. As court went about many lawyers were briskly walking around, speaking to their clients and going into private meetings wherever they could find space.
The design of this courtroom was slightly different. The circulation proceeded along a main centered axis; the “bar” was broken in the middle. There was no TV monitor, however there was a chalkboard and a mounted retractable projection screen (above a high window). The ceiling was pronounced in the same manner, however the entire ceiling was higher. The higher ceiling made the volume seem narrow and high. With the amount of people in the room, lawyers, officers, public, defendants, the space seemed to fill out quite quickly. With the amount of people and the higher volume voices and noises began to echo more and therefore was difficult to comprehend all the different activities at once.
The third courtroom was an arraignment courtroom. As I was walking in (court was already in session) I automatically saw the defendant in full shackles connecting their wrists to their ankles. This was a first for me. The emotions I felt are difficult to describe. Soon this prisoner was escorted out. I then witnessed two other proceedings of arraignment for cocaine related charges. There were not many people in this courtroom; the judge, the DA, two clerks, one/two bailiffs, defendants, their attorney and very few public visitors. Many of the public visitors were relatives of the defendant to support them. The courtroom was volumetric similar to the second on. However, this time it was much easier to understand because communication was more along the lines of a conversation between the judge and the defendant.
The layout of the third courtroom was quite similar to the second one, a repeating layout they used. However, with there were more doors leading to different areas of security for defendants. This courtroom felt more intimate even though it had high ceilings.
Overall, my court observations gave me great insight into the workings of a courtroom and how this can play into my design for the rest of my semester. Also, the concept of security and privacy and how they play a role in the overall design of the courtroom and courthouse.
I visited the Mecklenburg County Courthouse on Tuesday, September 25th. I was able to sit in on both civil and criminal proceedings, with and without jury trials. It was the first time I have ever just visited the courthouse to watch trials, simply as a spectator. I have watched high profile trials on television before but never taken the time to go down to the courthouse and publicly witness law in process. The experience is tangibly different. I will just briefly sum up two major observances that are related to my project and research
First, walking into the courtroom is a little intimidating. You have no idea what is on the other side of the door, whether you are in the right spot, if court is in session, or if you are even ‘supposed’ to be there. The doors are massive and it was intimidating opening and crossing through the threshold. The sound lock had very thin windows that were slightly opaque so seeing what you were walking into was next to impossible. What I found most interesting was the reception that you are given upon entering, a mix of ‘who are you and what are you doing here’ to ‘are you in the right place’ types of attention. It makes you feel slightly intrusive. This is an interesting response to a ‘public’ trial. After the initial response, you are mostly ignored, but I did find that sense of not belonging fascinating – I am obviously not the only one that does not go often to publically view trials.
The second was my emotional response to locking up guilty defendants. Specifically, this occurred when a 53 year old woman on trial for the sale of a third of an ounce of cocaine. She had obviously had a tumultuous life and one that involved many run-ins with the law, as she was a level 4 defendant. She was 30 days from being released from probation and was holding down a job as a truck driver, despite not being able to drive out of state. She sold the cocaine to an undercover officer for $20, which was paid to her in a marked bill. It seemed like the situation was opportunistic as opposed to well thought out. Never-the-less, she clearly had no case, had committed a crime, but I actually felt sorry for her and her mother that was sitting in front of me. It was emotional as the judge read through the litany of rights she had available to her, sentenced her to 15-24 months, and then finally as she was handcuffed. I wanted to reach out and give her a hug and say ‘hang in there’ and’ turn your life around’. I wanted to give her mother a hug and say ‘it will be alright’. The judge even extended a personal measure to her admonishing her to stop – the only person he really did this with during my observation. As I left the courtroom I had a feeling that she would be back again, that the time spent in prison would not help. It was a response to crime and punishment that I did not expect to have and one that I do not believe that I would have had sitting at home on the couch watching it on TV.
The addition of topography opened new avenues for exploring the various facets of “slipping” developed in earlier ideation models. Four “court-sets” cascade from the street down a hill, looking toward the Charlotte skyline. Oriented North, this aggregation of court-sets aims to utilize the courtroom thresholds generated previously with the path of the sun to highlight the passage of time during the court experience. Glimpses and reveals between and through the massing model blocks articulate the quality of “spaces between”; the sense of successive frames simultaneously separating and connecting each space.
To be completely honest, I had no clue what to really expect when I went to the Mecklenburg County Courthouse to observe trials. Maybe this uncertainty was fueled by the romanticized situations perpetuated by t.v., in which I had convinced myself, that cannot be real life. While the cases were not as dramatic as a show, say “Judge Judy,” there was still quite a bit of interesting events that ensued in court.
Let me begin with the general scheduling of a courthouse. Everyone, well almost everyone, goes on lunch between noon and 2 p.m. Within these hours, everything seems to seize and desist in the courthouse. What was remaining were the lawyers scrambling to balance getting lunch, with getting facts, and finding that one more person to represent. There were a few security officers roaming around keeping the place in check, but all in all, things became rather stagnant during those hours. Once lunch was over, there was an influx of people entering the courthouse, waiting outside the courtrooms, and an urgency to get trials moving.
The second general observation: security at the courthouse is almost more rigid than at the airport. It seems as though their detectors are a little more sensitive to metal. The organization of security was very clear, escorting the different types of populations and sorting them by signs, leading the public one way and workers through another. There is a definite variance of the number of officers present in each type of court. The greater the crime, the greater the presence of security, and typically the higher the floor you are on (in acceptance to family court).
On to the court cases. The first set of cases that I observed were what I was originally informed was going to be traffic court. Soon to find out, this was erroneous information (the clerk of court didn’t really seem connected to the proceedings of the building). It turns out that they were hearings to set court dates as well bail amounts for suspects already in jail. All suspects, but two, were shown on t.v., in which the judge spoke through a monitor, rapidly going through paper, handing down court dates, asking for pleas, and assigning bail amounts. Most of the criminals seemed to be in their situation because of probation violations. Within this courtroom, there was a rapid set pace. To keep up with the vast quantity of paper work to be filtered, there were 3 clerks to help. There were numerous lawyers standing around waiting for their clients papers to surface in the stack just to make a brief statement. Within this set of proceedings, the judge also decided if suspects/criminals should be appointed a lawyer, an interpreter, or both. The scale of this courtroom was smaller, the ceilings were lower, and the circulation seemed to be controlled to the periphery of the courtroom rather than the center. The volume in this court seemed to be greater than all of the others, but because of its smaller size, it was still easy to discern what the judge was communicating (which, by the way, he had the greatest sense of humor. He even asked if someone plead guilty to being a jerk).
The next set of proceedings that I sat in on were misdemeanor drug charges. The first thing that I happened to notice when I walked in was that all of the arresting officers were present where you would think a jury would be present. The layout of this courtroom seemed a little different than the previous courtroom. Instead of the judge’s bench being centered in the room, it was off to the side. Also, there was a witness stand included in the room, unlike in the first room. The circulation was directed differently, bisecting the center of the room, controlling the circulation to be down the center. This courtroom also included a greater amount of doors leading into the courtroom, varying in function from judge’s entrance to emergency exit. The security was more rigorous in this courtroom with a greater amount of bailiffs present. These bailiffs actually seemed interested in the happenings of the public observants. I was even questioned about why I was drawing plans in my sketchbook. I then proceeded to explain my purpose and apparently the bailiff was joking, but he had me going. The manner in which court was conducted in this room was a little difficult to follow. It seemed as though lawyers were making deals and submitting them the clerk instead of proceeding through a judge. There was a lot of chattering, which made it difficult to hear what exactly was happening. Combine that with the larger space and higher ceilings, there was a poor reverberation of sound.
The last set of cases that I observed were federal drug cases, including crimes such as distributing cocaine. The layout of this courtroom was the most elaborate. There was a larger amount of doors to control the circulation of those in the trial. There were fewer people present from the public. Most of the people who were sitting behind the bar were family there as leverage to persuade the judge to assign a lesser sentence. While both the defendant and the public prosecutor (in this case the District Attorney) were present, they were not their to present evidence for conviction, but evidence to determine the sentencing. The criminals were put into shackles to be processed immediately following their arraignment. Because the courtroom seemed to be used for arraignments, there was no fixed jury seating.
Overall, the general synopsis of how the courthouse is organized is in the following way: the higher the floor, the fewer the public observants, but the larger the courtroom, the greater the security.
On Wednesday, I visited Mecklenberg Country Courthouse to witness various types of courtrooms in action. The following is a summary of my observations and analyses.
Octagonal raised ceiling brings focus to litigation area
First, I sat in on a few criminal court cases. In the first courtroom I went to, a series of arraignments were being held for drug-related crimes. The first thing I noticed was how difficult it was to hear the lawyers argue their cases. This courtroom was a typical rectangular courtroom, so the counselors’ tables faced away from the spectators towards the judge at the front of the space. Because they were talking in front of the bar and towards the judge, the lawyers were difficult to hear as a spectator. Also, since the arraignment cases were scheduled nonstop, one right after the other, many people (lawyers, spectators, bailiffs) kept entering and leaving the space as the particular case they were interested in either started or ended. Already having trouble hearing, I noticed that the sound lock for the courtroom didn’t seem to be working well, since I kept hearing a lot of hallway noise whenever the door was opened. I believe this is because the two doors of the sound lock were within easy reach of each other, so the previous door would still be open as the person was opening the next.
The next courtroom I went to was also in use for criminal court. This one was being used for arraignments for parole violations. While I was in this courtroom, I looked at the way the architecture affected the use of the space. For instance, the doors to the in-custody holding area were placed on a diagonal so that they faced towards the judge, rather than towards the spectators. The in-custody defendant was never part of the public space of the courtroom, but always in front of the bar, in the litigation space. I also noticed that all of the Mecklenberg County courtrooms had a raised, octagonal ceiling above the litigation space, to emphasize and draw attention towards the action of the courtroom. The architectural focus on the litigation space, combined with the physical barrier of the bar, made me feel like I was watching a play on stage. I felt distant and disconnected from the trials, like what was happening wasn’t real. It wasn’t until the judge decided to send one defendant to prison and he was taken away in handcuffs that I consciously realized that these were real people, and I was witnessing their real lives being altered in mere seconds.
After observing criminal court for about an hour, I moved upstairs to family court. The case I witnessed was a custody trial where the defendant was representing himself. This case felt the most “real” to me as I observed. Emotional tension was high in this courtroom, and you could hear the defendant’s voice breaking as he called to the stand and questioned his friends and neighbors as witnesses to his character and paternal abilities.
One thing I noticed about the family courtroom was that it was very easy to hear the proceedings. I believe this had a lot to do with the quiet, private nature of the case as well as with the layout of the room. The spectator seating was located fairly close behind each of the counselors’ tables, which were also rounded, forming a kind of circle with the Judge and the witness stand. This setup made this court seem more like a “round-table” discussion than a trial. I thought this was appropriate, since, though the judge and the witnesses would contribute their insight and opinions, their real purpose was to mediate as a third, unbiased party to work out an appropriate solution to a personal, more or less “private” problem between the defendant and the prosecutor.
Family Courtroom Layout as a “Round Table” Discussion Space
The last type of court I observed consisted of civil court proceedings for rental agencies bringing cases against renters who violated their lease agreements. This was certainly the most boring set of court proceedings to sit through–even the judge was obviously bored and aggravated! Overall, the judge moved through the cases (about 10-15 in 40 minutes) fairly quickly, and I noticed that this type of courtroom really required more spectator seating than any other one, since that is where both the defendant renters and prosecuting leasing agents waited their turn to state their case and have the judge review the content of their leases.
Daylighting Section (Natural Light blocked by Shades)
After visiting all three types of court, I made note of some general things that I noticed throughout the day. (1) The central atrium space in Mecklenberg County Courthouse made the building feel very open and public on the interior and also made it pretty easy to orient yourself within the large building. (2) Opaque shades were always drawn over the windows in the courtroom, so, though it may have been designed to be naturally lit, daylight really did not ever enter the courtroom. (3) As an observer, I found it very distracting when other observers, counselors, or bailiffs would get up and leave while court was in session (especially because of noise); it would be nice if there were side aisles or some other way for observers to “sneak out” of the courtroom when they wish to leave.
[space + justice] 