Last-Minute Improvements

by cchlebda

At our pin up on Friday, my peers questioned the way that the design of my atrium forced courtroom visitors to enter and see the underside of a stair. This was an aspect of my design that I had known was flawed, but I did not think I had enough time to fix it. However, after being specifically called out on it within 15 minutes of my peers’ commentary, I realized it was probably worth taking the time to address the issue. Fortunately, the time I took to work on the stair issue over the weekend has paid off. The solution I have developed not only better resolves the underside-of-the-stair issue by making use of that space, but it also refines and resolves other issues I had with my atrium design that had not been worked out.

FRIDAY’S DESIGN: Atrium from Level 1 | Note how you can see security equipment from the atrium, the exit is not clear, and the user has to turn around to face the stair to see the double helix.

The solution to the stair issue was fairly simple: rotate the public stair at level 1 slightly and shift it over about 6 feet, which also shifts where the atrium access point from the security screening area is. This one change does so much for the design. (1) For one thing, it blocks the view from the atrium to the security screening equipment, which had been bothering me before because I didn’t want courthouse visitors to be reminded of the “hassle” of going through security during their already stressful time at court. (2) The entry to the atrium from security now aligns with the exit back into the cafe, so that a user in the atrium can clearly see the exit (not the security screening equipment, like they used to). (3) The lower space under the public stair is utilized as seating space. Since the stair was shifted, it was moved closer to the elevators, so this bench might be used by people waiting for the elevator to arrive. (4) When the user enters the atrium from security, he enters into the center of the double-helix stairs. This allows the user to really experience the double helix/separate circulation paths idea in a way that is not confusing (as approaching from the side might have been). The stairs as formal elements also create a linear dynamicism that might guide the user through the space.

CURRENT DESIGN: Level 1 Plan | Note how shifting the public stair to the left aligns entry into the atrium with the exit and blocks views to security from the atrium

CURRENT DESIGN: Atrium view from Security | Note how the user now enters into the atrium through the previously underutilized space at the center of the double helix stairs

Overall, I am very happy with the way I have resolved the atrium stair. It feels so good when working through design challenges ultimately results in richer and better solutions!

Breakthrough

by cchlebda

Level 1 Plan

I spent the past week working through the problem of designing two different, crisscrossing vertical circulation paths (public and private) that could never touch in my reconfigured atrium. Initially, all of my schemes involved long stairs that would stretch across the atrium and over each other, but I kept running into problems of not having enough headroom under crisscrossing lengths of stairs. Also, because the public and private sides of the building reverse at Level 2, even when I finally got the stairs to work properly, I ran into issues extending a walkway across the atrium from the public elevators that were located on the opposite side.

Finally, I discovered a breakthrough solution–having the stairs spiral around each other, like a double helix, and moving the public elevators to the center of the atrium, rather than one side or the other. This way, I wouldn’t have any headroom issues, the public and private paths would never cross (just spiral around each other), and the elevators would only need paths to span across half the atrium on any given floor level. In my most recent (and likely final) iteration of this idea (depicted here), the stairs closest to the eastern wall of the atrium are stacked on top of each other, and the stairs towards the center of the atrium crisscross to achieve some of the dynamism I liked about my intial crisscrossing schemes.

Public Atrium Stair at Level 1

Public Atrium Stair at Level 2

Atrium at Level 2; Public Elevators can be seen on the left; Private Stair in the foreground with the Public Stair in the background

Now I have an atrium that truly reflects my concept: the intertwining of public and private spaces.

Gaining Complexity

by cchlebda

This week, I’ve been working mostly on implementing my new idea for crisscrossing public and private circulation paths within a more centralized atrium space. It’s been kind of a trial and error process of testing various slopes and angles of staircases to try to get a combination that actually works (leaving enough headroom under the stairs as they crisscross). These are some images of the design where it is right now. I’ve moved into Revit, which is helping me quickly test different stair types. I’ve just been using the program’s default materials, railings, stairs, etc. for now. My focus has been on developing the shape and functionality of the space, and I will focus on details later. The atrium still has a ways to go, but it’s getting there.

Atrium from Level 2

View from Alternate Dispute Resolution into courtroom

Level 3 Courtroom – Witness’s View

 

 

Midlife Crisis

by cchlebda

Two days before midreview, my project underwent a midlife crisis.

After I finished my model Wednesday night, I reevaluated my design and realized that my courthouse, while highly functional, was incredibly boring. It had no “soul”–nothing that made it unique. It could have been any courthouse, anywhere. So, I went back to some of the original concepts I had at the beginning of the semester and thought about how these could make their way back into the project (“intertwining public and private spaces” and the idea of pulling the park over or through the building). I started sketching ideas that kept the existing functionality of the latest design iteration, while making the building much more interesting.

I realized that in my past few iterations, the lobby was like a completely separate building from the courtrooms, and I even had a thickened “wall” of circulation separating the two. When I modeled it, the lobby also seemed out of scale with the rest of the building. Moving forward, I want to bring the lobby/vertical circulation into the courtroom part of the building, giving the user more of a “choice” than just walking down a really long corridor to his final destination. I also want to experiment with different, crisscrossing paths within a central atrium, which will literally “intertwine public and private spaces” in an interesting way, similar to the public bridges that I was already starting to experiment with in the previous design’s atrium.

Level 1 – New Scheme

Level 2 – New Scheme

Entry

by cchlebda

Around fall break, I started to think about how to delineate an entry sequence for the courthouse. Up to this point, I had been drawing the lobby as a large space without any program, doors, or other articulation worked into it. Because I want my flex space to be a publicly accessible cafe (visitors wouldn’t have to go through security), the cafe and its various support spaces would be located in the lobby. The issue I faced was how to make an entry space with a kitchen, restrooms, and dining area in the lobby along with security screening stations and queuing areas, as well as vertical circulation for the courthouse. I looked at the walls I had been drawing as dividers between a secure atrium and the cafe in my previous plan iterations, and I realized that the “poche” of these walls could be thickened to contain the service spaces of the lobby/cafe (kitchen, restrooms,  circulation). The thickness of these “walls” turned spaces also created a human scale threshold to tuck the security screening station into, so that it wasn’t the first obvious thing a user would see upon entering the courthouse or cafe.

First Floor plan with articulated entry/atrium spaces

Entry/Approach sketches

As I worked on the lobby space, I continued to refine and develop the rest of the courthouse as well. I reexamined the courtroom in section and thought about how people in the alternate dispute resolution spaces (public) could start to see into the courtrooms from above. Likewise, I continued to develop the building form, refining the curvature of the roof and ceilings of the courthouse spaces.

Section through courtroom with view from ADR

Sketches – Judge’s bench in elevation, Roof form

Breaking Barriers

by cchlebda

As I mentioned in my last post, some design concerns I took away  from Mecklenberg County Courthouse included introducing natural light without glare (so the shades aren’t perpetually drawn) and creating a kind of side space for observers to “sneak out” of the courtroom without disturbing others. With these and other issues in mind, I reexamined my courtset design.

Model of Courtset with Vertical Fins

I began by breaking each courtroom’s side walls, which are adjacent to courtyards. Originally, I had introduced the courtyards in order to bring daylight and outdoor views to the “interior” jury deliberation spaces. Therefore, when I started to open the side walls of the courtrooms, I used a series of angled, vertical fins to block views from the courtroom into the jury room and vice versa. Using fins also allowed me to introduce softened, reflected light into the courtroom, rather than the kind of direct light that was constantly shut out of Mecklenberg County Courthouse. After modeling this scheme, I realized that  changing the location of the glass envelope in realtion to these fins also presented an opportunity to create a visual barrier between spectator seating and side entry aisles, preventing people from causing too much of a disruption as they come and go during court proceedings.

Courtroom with Side Entry Aisles

In addition to reevaluating my courtsets this week, I have begun to look at how the jury assembly spaces and circulation might fit into the overall building layout. I find the duality of the jury’s position in court to be of particular interest. That is, the jury must always be a simultaneously public and private entity. The jury must be public in the sense that its members, constitutionally, are the “peers” of the defendant and private in the sense that the jury cannot come into contact with the judge, defense, prosecution, or any other party that might try to influence their decision, resulting in a mistrial.

With this duality in mind, I have positioned the jury assembly spaces in the kind of residual floor level that exists “in-between” the courtroom levels. I have designed my courtrooms in section to be double-height on the south, public side and curve down to single-height on the north, private side. The “in-between” space where I have decided to place the jury is literally sandwiched by judges’ and staff’s single-height spaces (on the courtroom levels) in section and adjacent to the courtrooms above and below in plan. The jury itself is an intersection of public and private, and by positioning the jury in this residual, “in-between” space, I’ve  discovered another spatial way to intertwine public and private in the courthouse as a whole.

Jury Assembly and ADR sandwiched between private levels

by cchlebda

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.

Courtroom Layout Comparison

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.

Intertwining Public and Private

by cchlebda

As I continue to develop study models and examine the courthouse program, I am becoming increasingly interested in blending or interweaving public and private spaces of the courthouse in order to make court and the law seem more accessible to the public. Though the private spaces of the courthouse (judge/staff/in-custody/etc.) have to be completely separated from public spaces for functional and security reasons, I am interested in finding ways to weave public spaces through the private spaces. One way I have experiemented with is to insert public spaces “in-between” private floor levels. Another way is to think about the courtrooms as nodes/bridges between private and public, since it is the only space in the courthouse where all parties (judge, jury, counselors, defendants, and spectators) are present together at any given time.

I developed a series of plans and models resulting in a kind of “finger” scheme, a series of alternating public and private wedges. I then took this a step further and started to look at how to bring the park/nature into the building. I also thought about the unique position of the jury (a combined public and private entity) and how their spaces might be positioned in the courthouse. In my plans, sections, and diagrams, I have been using blue to represent private spaces, yellow to represent public spaces, and green to represent outdoor, potentially vegetated spaces. The green is present in areas (in plan) where the public and private spaces start to intersect (coincidentally, blue + yellow = green); in other words, the building starts to open up exterior spaces where public and private spaces intertwine.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The Courtset: Early Concepts

by cchlebda

I began developing the courtset by examining the experience of the witness. Elevated on the stand, being scrupulously watched and heard by the jury, counselors, judge, and a crowd of specators, the witness is more than likely to experience discomfort. I wanted the form of the courtroom to allow the witness to see views out to nature, even if such views were only to the sky, to give them something soothing to look out towards if being the center of attention becomes too stressful.

I developed a form for the courtroom that would simultaneously allow the witness to view nature, focus attention towards those involved in the judicial process (judge, counselors, witness, jury), and allow daylight to enter and reflect through the space.

I then made a set of models to look at how this form of the courtroom, when repeated, could affect the form of the whole building. I discovered a duality to the form: a tall, almost imposing facade on one side, and a lower, looser, more accessible facade on the other side. This form started to express the oppositions inherent in the judicial process and the courthouse, e.g. freedom vs. law, public vs. private, liberation vs. punishment. I also noticed an opportunity for the lower side of the building to appear to emerge out of the earth, visually bringing Bryant Park over the building and symbolically making the law accessible to the public, emerging out of ‘freedom’. The following images show a series of studies using this idea of the park flowing over the courthouse, as well as ideas about intersection of public and private spaces (making the courthouse most accessible to the public).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Site Analysis

by cchlebda