I have worked to refine a rendering technique that can be used to accurately portray this structure as a public space filled with light. The pin-up will be to gauge how these renderings and diagrams work together with my models and floor plans through presentation. I am looking to combine these elements and designs in a specific way to portray my building as an open courthouse through place and metaphor.
The week has been spent attempting to dissect the transition of the building to the site. Attempting to use the slope of the site to relate to the section of the building, and how it positions itself within the site. Looking at how the lines of the building fold to meet the ground or attempt to fold twice to create a floor condition. With the site’s sloped condition, the lines are able to produce a double fold and create a floor plate which allows for the spaces below the main floor to open up.
For the midterm review, I was able to lay out the full floor plan in order to fully understand the spaces that are created. The 8th scale model helped to understand the courtroom spaces that are created by the lines, intimately looking at the clerestory windows that provide light to the interior space. This model was better able to display the open spaces around the courtyards as public space. The floor plans and diagrams helped me to begin to understand the rules of this building and the spaces created within these lines.
The next steps in the process are digesting the exterior ground condition of these lines. I will be working on figuring out how these folded lines interact with the ground to create the interior spaces. The following studies will also explore the condition of the slope within the building site. The site plan will be able to be more developed through a series of design charettes exploring the building interaction with the site.
Moving forward with the idea of physical lines as a solution to the courtset construction, the program has begun to develop. The program within this form mimics the overall form of the building, very linear. With overhead planes which create implied spaces throughout the building, these linear programmatic elements are able to be pushed and pulled to create moments and develop an interaction between them. The ribbons have established a set of rules and created programmatic reference within themselves. Some begin to become solid barriers, while others attempt to disappear in the light. The building form becomes an icon through its form. It needs its own set of design rules that must begin to form in the program of the building.
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.
The overwhelming experience that I had at the Mecklenburg County Court was the feeling of emotion. It was an interesting meeting of emotions in a place that requires the suppression of emotion in making a decision. In almost every court case that I witnessed, emotion played a major role in my judgement of the case as an outsider.
In Civil Court, the domestic abuse trials were focused on convincing the judge that the person in custody was really a good person, and messed up one time. The majority of the trial involved background on the convicted party proving how good of a person and citizen they are normally. It resulted in each of the people that I witnessed (all were up for a removal of bail and release) being freed of their bail and released back into society. I agreed with most of these decisions, but there was one case in which the judge seemed undecided. The ominous words to end the trial were ‘Don’t make me regret this.’ This decision seemed like the back story on the plaintiff won the judge over emotionally. With the criminal cases, the most striking thing was the representative of the state. He was charged with prosecuting many people, and was not well versed in the background of the case, however, he had very little motivation and seemed to not be representative of the state. It was a very emotionless plea that did not work even once through my observation.
The Family Court Trial was the most emotionally charged. The case I witnessed involved a separated Father and Mother arguing over child support payments. The father lost most of the arguments, and had to be told several times to be respectful and quiet. It was overwhelmingly obvious that the judge did not like the Father, but to see his disgust with the man, and then side for him on certain aspects was very interesting. The ability of the law to put motion aside and make a decision was clearly executed here, and sent that point home with me. The Father’s failure to have proper representation hurt him in the trial, as he was not as well versed in the nuances of the law. He would have won all of the aspects of the trial if he did not refuse to be witness to questioning. It was very difficult for me to witness this case, as there was so much emotion and tension in the room. It was obviously wearing on the judge over the course of the day.
The Family Courts have an entirely different spacial feeling than the other court rooms. The common areas are all very soft and playful. The walls are decorated with art, there are different color schemes throughout, and there were a lot of people and children milling about. It came across as a much more informal area that respected the children and tried its best to not be imposing.
The Criminal Court trials featured several people pleading guilty and not guilty drug use/distribution. To see a mother of two get convicted of Cocaine Possession was very interesting. The Defendant pleaded guilty to get a reduced sentence. This worked for her, and she was sentenced to the minimum jail sentence. The family was distraught and inconsolable. I was also able to speak with the judge about something I noticed about how the space functioned. That was the amount of movement, people in and out of the room. The constant movement was very distracting to me in the audience. The judge said that in most cases it did not effect him, but he does get distracted on occasion. He said that the respect for the courtroom has really changed over time, and he does not understand why people behave inappropriately and without respect. He suggested trying to create a solution for the constant movement.
I was also witness to a trial by jury, in the case of a rape accusation. This was much more typical to what I understand as a court room trial. I was able to witness most of the witness questioning for the day, and felt the emotion leave the room in the trial. This was a very by the book trial, as most of it was listening to lawyers. The lawyers were very precise in their language and actions, which seemed to emulate the intentions of the law. It was very interesting to see the lawyers take over and run the court room. The amount of information that they had to get out of each witness was immense. Very basic facts had to be repeated several times in order for the court to fully understand. The Jury can be easily swayed by the emotional aspects, and it is interesting to see the lawyers try to control that aspect, in order to get sympathy toward their client, and anger toward to other party.
In all of these cases, it really boils down to someone not telling the truth. I do not understand how it can get this far into the trial process, on a lie. I am glad that the court system is there to interpret this, but it should never get this far in the first place. I was disappointed with how most of the court rooms functioned, in that a mass of people were on trial for only a few minutes and then convicted. I was expecting more of this. However, all of the cases proved interesting and it was very nice to see the interaction of emotion and law, and how that affected the judges and the people on trial.
Working toward extruding the dominant courthouse circulation into a site form. The Lines of the interior circulation become the form of the building gesturing toward the public spaces and toward the greater Charlotte City Center. A Sketch Model development toward discovering the form of lines.
There are two trains of thought with the layout for the programmatic court set. The court, and auxiliary rooms, each have their own spacial layout that has developed differently.
The idea of a courtroom as an individual volume created the sketch model arranging the four individual volumes. The volumes allow for different formal shapes as well as affording unique views and site responses. This lets each courtroom have its own characteristics and formal expression. How can the manipulation of volumes work together to form a set of rooms which work together for a common program?
Using the strong traditional patterns of circulation with a courtroom (from back to front) the second study looked into forming an implied circulation and creating spaces through these implied moments and perpendicular planes. The courtroom’s form ends in a pinnacle that is formed from transforming the program circulation’s penultimate moment. It is the spaces between the planes that create new spaces within the transformed circulation. Can spaces be created from simple planes, and how can this new space interact with other spacial arrangements with the same form?
The Bryant Park Community lies in the shadow of the ‘New City’ of Charlotte. The Site calls for the rise of a new neighborhood from the trash of the remaining community. Like the city of Charlotte, Bryant Park will connect to the past by rising above it and create a new active district hub. From the shadow of the new city to a beacon of the new south.
The Courthouse is really the expression of the justice system in a democracy. It has to be very open, and yet has to be secure … The idea of openness representing freedom in democracy [is] really an important part of the concept.
– Gyo Obata
The modern day courthouse is the result of a steady evolution in civic architecture that has spanned the timeline of civilized societies. Throughout this evolution there are common similarities between the civic architectures of each age. The courthouses of the Ancient Greeks, Early Americans, and the Modern Society have developed through style, program, and from, however, the common typology of civic architecture today can be traced back to the beginnings of society.
The courthouse was developed with the Greek Democracy. The government representative of the people (the Boule) met in the Bouletarian to preform the functions of a government and bring people to trial. The structure was designed as a piece of the greater Agora. The original government complex developed out of the necessity to bring the government of the people, to the people.
The Bouletarian was a clever mix of forms, of a solid foundation of representatives and an open connection to those people that are represented. The openness of the courtyard within the building walls allowed the democratic process to always be open to the society. The judgement of an individual is done by their peers under the broad scope of society. The elements of architecture that composed the Bouletarian were so basic and fundamental, that they were adopted by the American Government to represent the foundation of a stable, strong government. The use of the basic elements of structure (column, beam, pediment) symbolize the theory of the American Democracy today. It is a simple system that is just, strong, and fundamental for an evolving society.
The Early American Courthouses developed as a central axis of the American Landscape. Each town developed a cultural hub that surrounded the courthouse. It was here that the largest metropolises were formed, and the smallest towns were maintained. The courthouse was central to the development of the United States. The early courthouses were placed in the center of developments, separated from other buildings, and typically taking up their own city block. This placement allowed for the access of public lands by the people, which developed the initial commercial and residential zones which surround the downtown. It is this courthouse architype that is so engrained in every American’s mind. The installation of the one room courthouse, much like the Greek Bouletarian, held fate of an individual as decided by a jury of their peers. The towns came together in these courthouses to not only hold trial, but to conduct govenment business, hold meetings, and social functions. This one room held more of the societical benefits than any other building in the town. It stood alone and separated within the framework of the town as a representation of the process of law, and a symbol of authority. The solid, gabled roof structure sat high above the ground, to show that no one is above the law. It was a presence of a greater power, visually separated, yet open to the people it served. The symbol of the building holds all the power in the land, yet would be powerless without the people it stands above. It is the ultimate symbol of our founding democracy. You are the law, but you are not above it.
Within architectural standards, this structure has only recently become challenged. The modern courthouse pushes past the idea of a courthouse as a separate part of the urban fabric. The public use of the building has become much more on the forefront of the design process. Bringing the disconnected public back to the courthouse, for reasons other than court proceedings. The new wave of courthouse design has moved from the monolithic and classical forms to the use of more modern materials within more modern typologies. Large Glass Facades, Stone Veneer, and Huge Atriums are all standards that are starting to emerge in modern day design. These forms and ideas have greatly changed the perception of the building within the public landscape. No longer are people looking to the government as being above socity, the modern civic courthouse is looking back to Ancient Greece and the Agora to promote the civic functions of a society together, and to draw the people in. The modern courthouses have developed a need for openness, the feeling that the building is accessible by the public has been thrusted to the forefront of the current design principles. This architectural move allows for the courthouse to show that it is a part of the vernacular; it is not something that should be feared and misunderstood. The courthouse effects the people as much as, if not more, any other branch in the American Democracy. People should want to be involved. It has not been until recently that this programic and formal feature has been dictating the design process.
The Greeks kept their system open to the public from the inside, to remind the representatives who they represent. However, like the Historical concept of a courthouse, the building has been architecturally closed off from the society it serves. That recent change in design is for the better, and it will only continue to push the way the American Court System evolves in the future.
The precedent studies looked into the diagramatic formalities of each building (one from the Classical Greek design, one Historical American Reference, and one Modern Design). The Diagrams of Site, Entrance, Solid/Void, Program, Ciruclation, and Structure highlight how the courthouse has evolved and changed with the ever changing intracacies of Democracy. It is a simple comparison of different buildings to find out where the similarities are, and why they may have developed that way. The final precedent is a study on a modern addition to a historical courthouse. The connectivity of the two different forms and the play between old and new highlighted a common typology between two drastically different forms. This concept helped the building to keep its roots yet move to the future in a way that differs from our programatic requirements, but still poses an interesting solution.
It is this evolution of design in which I have become interested. This same programatic structure has spanned over two thousand years, and the forms have changed drastically, however that is only of late. The most interested phenomenon about this evolution is that the design of the courthouse has been relatively unchanged for most of its existence. It is the recent changes that have had the most effect on the fundamental form of the building. I am looking to discover that link between the past and the future. How can the courthouse move forward in design with a modern form, yet hark back simple roots of classical democracy?
[space + justice] 