saleem m dahabreh _ ijaer__pp 5709-5720 (1)

8/9/2019 Saleem M Dahabreh _ IJAER__pp 5709-5720 (1)

1/12

International Journal of Applied Engineering ResearchISSN 0973-4562 Volume 9, Number 19 (2014) pp. 5709-5720© Research India Publicationshttp://www.ripublication.com

Diagramming Federal Courtroom Floors: Identifying

Functional Typologies

Dr Jawdat Goussous and Dr Saleem M Dahabreh

Department of Architecture/University of Jordan

[email protected]

Department of Architecture/University of [email protected]

Abstract

In the case of many institutional buildings, such as courthouses, program andfunctional requirements present fixed precepts and unwritten demands thatgreatly affect the spatial layout of the building and ultimately its form. Thus,one way of studying courthouses is to identify the underlying functionalstructures in courtroom floors that would affect the form and layout of thecourthouse building. It is the purpose of this paper to identify these functionalstructures that underlie the design of many contemporary courthouses, andtheir spatial implications, in order to discover commonalities between themand establish them as functional and formal prototypes. Through archival andarchitectural analysis of twenty-five courtroom floors in different courthouses,the paper concluded that within the analyzed sample two main functional

prototypes of courtroom floors could be identified according to their geometricconfiguration: the central and the linear. Based on the functional structuresthat were found, and through applying transformation processes, a generativetypology of courtroom floors can be developed.

Key Words: Courtroom Floor Design, Constructive Diagrams, StrongProgram

Introduction

Courthouses facilities adhere to a strong and explicit functional program thatmaintains certain relations and rules; courthouses exhibit very clear and distinct

patterns of circulation as well as clearly defined spaces and functional zonesassociated with these circulation networks. Thus, courthouse facilities are “strong

program” buildings “where most of what happens is specified by explicit or tacit


2/12

5710 Dr Jawdat Goussous and Dr Saleem M Dahabreh

rules, and built into the spatial structure of the building.” (Hillier, Hanson &Peponis,1984, p. 69). Furthermore, Hillier (2007) noted that buildings of a culturally definedfunctional type in specific time and space tend to have common spatial properties inthe way different functions are spatialized. Accordingly, it can be argued thatalthough courthouse facilities vary to a great extent in their size, complexity, form andconfiguration, and architectural style, underlying the designs of many contemporarycourthouse facilities, there are well formulated functional structures with a consistentformal configuration especially in courtroom floors that are shared among a

population of courthouses, and that there is a finite set of these functionalstructures/patterns. This paper aims at uncovering these functional structures within asample of twenty five Federal courtroom floors and communicating them graphicallyas diagrams, thus, rendering them explicit rather than implicit and allowing for the

formation of formal typology for courtroom floors.In order to establish these functional structures and organize them into a formaltypology, the paper reviewed existing literature on Federal courthouse design in orderto identify the main functional components of the courthouse and their relationships.These functional components and their specified relationships form the constraintswithin which the design of a Federal Courtroom floor takes place. The program forthe courthouse facility, and more specific the functions that are located on thecourtroom floor was then decomposed into a functional system according to a model

proposed by Mitchell (1990). Following the model of Alexander (1964), thefunctional requirements as dictated by the guidelines and a spatial configuration ofcourtroom floors functions were presented graphically as “constructive” diagrams.

The aim of the graphical representation is to create an explicit visualrepresentation(Broadbent, 1988) that enables the understanding and analysis ofcourtroom floors both for analysis and design generation purposes.

The next step in the research was the analysis of case studies. The case studiesselected for this research are from the GSA's Courthouse Management Group (CMG)CD-ROM third edition. The CD-ROM contains IPIX photographs of the courthouses

built between 1989 and 1996 as well as background information about eachcourthouse and building drawings where available. The research selected the casestudies according to the availability of their architectural drawings. Furthermore, thesecourthouses are designed by different designers in different architectural styles over a

period of fifteen years in different parts of the United States of America, thus, the case

studies have a degree of randomness to them. The floor plates of twenty-threecourthouses, besides two other courthouses i.e. Omaha and Corpus Christi, containingcourtrooms were abstracted and analyzed according to the diagram established

previously in order to discover whether they have underlying common functionalstructures that affect their form and configuration.

The results showed that courtroom floors within the selected sample had commonunderlying functional structure/s that have a reoccurring geometric configurationregarding the location and accessibility of the main public spaces and courtrooms inthe courtroom floor. The two geometric configurations are the central and the linear.These two functional structures could be regarded as prototypes from which severaltypes and subtypes can be derived. Furthermore, these two configurations were traced


3/12

Diagramming Federal Courtroom Floors: Identifying Functional Typologies 5711

back to the constructive diagram that functional unit in the functional hierarchalsystem. Through the application of transformation processes, a generative typology isdeveloped from which a number of design solutions can be generated and applied todifferent contexts or design situations.

Understanding Federal Courthouse functionsThe design of Federal Courthouse buildings is strongly prescribed by programmaticrequirements and design guidelines; specific spaces are developed to accommodatespecific functions which affect not only their internal arrangement but also theiradjacencies and links to other spaces. Courthouses are organized into five discretezones with respect to function, operational needs, and access requirements (Dahabreh,

2006); a public zone, private zone, secure zone, interface zone, and service zone. The public zone includes all the areas accessible to general public along with attorneys,clients, witnesses and jurors such as a central public hall, circulation corridors andwaiting areas, snack bars, etc. The private zone includes all the functions that have arestricted access and are used by particular courthouse users such as judges, jurors,and employees. The secure zone is provided for the movement and holding ofdefendants in custody; it includes horizontal and vertical secure circulation systems aswell as holding areas. The interface zone is the most important zone of the courthousewhere the space where the public, private, and secure zones interact, it includes thecourtroom and its associated functions. The service zone includes all the spaces thatserve to support the other functions: storage areas, mechanical spaces, maintenance

areas, and so on.These zones are served by three separate circulation systems (State of CaliforniaTask Force on Court Facilities, 1999, U.S. Courts Design Guide, 2007): publiccirculation system, which is an unrestricted circulation system dedicated to thegeneral public. Restricted/private circulation system accessing the restricted zone anddedicated to judicial system professionals such as judges, probation officers, courtstaff, and attorneys. The secure/defendants-in-custody system that includes a ‘secure’vertical and horizontal circulation system that connects the vehicular sally port, thecentral holding area, attorney interview rooms, and the holding areas adjacent to thecourtrooms.

Within these zones, functions are divided into two types: functions directly

associated with the courtroom are labeled ‘low volume’ functions, whileadministrative and social services are labeled ‘high volume’ functions (Green, 1994,Hardenbergh ET. al., 1998, Phillips&Griebel,2003). Both Hardenbergh (1999) andPhillips and Griebel(2003) encourage the separation of high volume functions fromlow volume functions. High volume functions should be located on the entry floor orlower floors to be as accessible as possible to the public. Low volume functionsshould be located on higher floors to enhance security. Dahabreh (2006, 2014) arguedthat these low volume functions that are called courtroom floor set have a commonunderlying spatial pattern that can be presented as a functional structure for courtroomfloors.Table one shows the allocation and relationship of these functions to thecourtroom. Table two shows the grouping of these functions into functional zones.


4/12


Table 1: functions that are directly related to the functioning of the courtroom

Functional activity Adjacency &Circulation

Accessibility Location

Courtroom Clustered in a floorin groups of 2,4,6,8

Public,restricted &

secure

Lower/Upper floorsaccording to

proceeding & trafficJudge’s chamber Close to courtroom

viacorridor/elevator

Restrictedcirculation

Decentralized oncourtroom

floor/centralized onseparate floors

Reception/secretary

Work areaStorage/copy/workroomToilets

Library/conferenceJury assembly Near the entrance of

the courthousePublic &restricted

First/Lower floors

Jury deliberation Near the courtroom Restricted Courtroom floorsCloak/toilets for jury See figure

Courtroom Holding area/s Close to courtroom Secure Courtroom floorsGuard/s Secure Courtroom floors

Secure staircase/elevator Secure Courtroom floorsAttorney/witness

conferenceDirectly adjacent to

courtroomFrom

courtroomvestibule

Courtroom floors

Attorney/clientconference

Witness/victim waiting

Directly adjacent tocourtroom

Fromcourtroomvestibule

Courtroom floors

Court reporter’s Restricted Courtroom floorsBailiff workstation RestrictedResearch attorney

offices/workstationsRestricted Courtroom floor

Robbing/conference room Directly adjacent tocourtroom Restricted Courtroom floor

Public waiting areas Public Courtroom floorPublic restrooms Public Courtroom floor

Services


5/12


Table 1 functional activities grouped as zones

Functional Activity Functional Set Zone

Services Service ZoneServices

Judge’s Suite Private ZoneJudge’s chamber

Reception/secretaryWork area

Storage/copy/workroom

ToiletLibrary/conference

Court SupportAttorney/witness conferenceAttorney/client conference

Witness/victim waitingCourt reporter’s

Bailiff workstationResearch attorney offices/workstations

Robbing/conference room

Fax/record storage/copying

Jury DeliberationJury assembly

Jury deliberationCloak/toilets

Defendants-in-custodyHolding Area

Secure Zone

Courtroom Holding area/sGuard/s

Secure staircase/elevator

Courtroom Interface ZoneCourtroom

Public Area Public ZonePublic waiting areas

Public restrooms


6/12


Analyzing Courtroom floor setsDahabreh (2014) identified the functional genotype that realizes all the spatialrelationships between courtroom floor functions (fig 1). However, the functionalgenotype captures topological relationships that can take any geometric form (Hillier& Hanson, 1984). As designers rarely represent their buildings as graphs, but oftenwork in diagrams, it is of value to express as much of the program graphically anddiagrammatically as possible as diagrams have direct implications on physical

building form (White, 1972). The diagram represents the genotype as a formalarrangement of spatial units with dimensions and areas. Thus, the diagram is closer toan actual architectural plan and expresses programmatic requirements in a way whichis more directly relevant to a designer (Cherry, 1999). Here the term “functionaldiagram” will be used in order to describe the geometrical arrangements in which a

given pattern of connections is realized. Functional diagrams are in this sense similarto what Alexander (1964) has described as constructive diagrams. Alexanderintroduced the idea of ‘constructive’ diagrams as means for representation. Aconstructive diagram is a combination of a ‘form’ diagram i.e. a diagram thatsummarizes aspects of the physical structure by representing one of the constituent

patterns of its constraints” and a requirement diagram that summaries “a set offunctional properties or constraints’ However, most of the functional diagramsdiscussed here are not starting points for the design of new buildings, but ratherabstractions from already existing designs. Thus, functional diagrams, as used here,serve an analytic not a synthetic purpose. Figure two represents the functionaldiagram of the courtroom floor set.

Figure 1 the functional genotype of the courtroom floor functions (Source

Dahabreh, 2014)


7/12


Figure 2 a functional diagram of a courtroom functional set (Source: Dahabreh,

2006)

In order to compare the plans of actual buildings to this diagram, the plans of thetwenty five cases selected were diagrammatically represented, as shown in Figure 3.Based on these diagrammatic plans, the functional diagrams representing courtroomsets were singled out, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 3 diagrammatic representations of a sample of 25 court building plans

(Source: Dahabreh, 2006)


8/12


Figure 4 diagrammatic representations of the courtroom floor sets of a sample of

court buildings (Source: Dahabreh, 2006)

Up to this point the analysis suggests that while the court building is stronglydetermined by functional requirements, there is some degree of variation in both theexact pattern of connections and the exact pattern of geometrical relationships thataccommodate the program.

Growth patterns: from the plan of the courtroom set to the plan of the court building floor

Court buildings are fundamentally recursive. The same cluster of accommodation,the courtroom set, is repeated many times over, on the same and on different floors.Thus, it is natural to ask how the basic clusters of accommodation are arrayed intorecursive patterns to produce the overall plan. Figure 5 helps to reveal someinteresting similarities and differences between court buildings in this respect. In 21

out of 25 cases all accommodation related to courtroom sets was on the same level;only in four buildings does the courtroom set span across two successive buildingfloors, with the judge’s chambers on a different floor than the courtroom itself. In 9cases four courtroom sets were arranged in pairs on the two sides of a central atriumspace. In the other cases courtroom sets were arranged in some form of simplesuccession.In ten cases linear succession involved the creation of a shallow zone of

public space in the front of the building, a deeper middle zone including thecourtrooms and associated spaces, and a back zone with judge’s accommodation. This

pattern results in different plan geometries. In 5 out of the 10 cases the court building plan is literally linear; in 3 cases it is L-shaped and in the 2 remaining cases the planassumes a circular form.


9/12


In order to make sense of the alternative patterns of recursive arrangement that aresuggested by the foregoing heuristic investigation, two different models of court-setconfigurations are proposed, the concentric and the linear. The essential difference

between these arises from the location of the public, whether it is centralized betweenthe courtrooms and accessed from both sides and whether it is located on the

periphery of the configuration so that access to the courtrooms is only from one sideof the public space.

Figure 6: concentric and linear patterns of recursion in the configuration of

court building floor plans (Source: Dahabreh, 2006)

In the concentric model the courtroom floor has a central public space withcourtrooms arranged on two sides of the central space. The restricted or private zonelies on the periphery. Public circulation is concentrated in the center of a rectangularform. Private or restricted circulation circumscribes the courtrooms and connects thevarious restricted parts: judges’ chambers, jury deliberation rooms, court support, andthe courtroom along with the restricted vertical circulation. A generic diagram for thistype, drawn according to the 9 court buildings, is presented in Figure 7.


10/12


Figure 7 diagram of the concentric configuration of the courtroom floor (Source:

Dahabreh, 2006)

In the linear configuration, public space forms a more or less continuous thin zoneon the front side of the configuration. Courtrooms define the inner edge of the zone.The restricted circulation system also tends to be linear, and arranged on the back sideof the courtrooms, as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8 diagram of the linear configuration of the courtroom floor (Source:

Dahabreh, 2006)

Conclusions

This paper showed that courtroom floors in various courthouse facilities, althoughseemingly different, have underlying common functional structures i.e. functional

prototypes/genotypes and that there is a finite set of these functional genotypes withinthe sample investigated. The 25 plans analyzed above fit into these two underlyingconfigurational patterns. The sample includes 9 concentric and 16 linear plans, some


11/12


of which are elementary in that only a very small number of courtrooms is found oneach floor. Thus, the two models are themselves genotypical of the court building as atype. Once any of these functional prototypes has been established according toneeded functions and required relationships, it can be open for manipulation wheremany other arrangements of its parts can be explored retaining the basic informationin its diagram; the prototype can be refined according to constraints specified by thesite, the client, or different geometric or proportional systems, etc… and as the design

progresses the prototype takes specific shape, form, and style. Thus, these functionalconfigurations can be regarded as elementary ideas or principle types on which ofglobal variations can be found. These prototypes can be arranged to form a typologythat can be used for both analyzing existing courtroom floors and generating newdesigns that maintain the basic rules and regulations required by the functional

program.The advantage of such a research is that it provides a bridge between the prescriptive world of guidelines and actual designs by providing diagrams constrained by requirements and constructed through actual practice. The power of such diagramslies in the fact that they are abstract and thus open for various stylistic interpretation

but yet concrete enough to allow choices before the actual design process begins,thus, providing both designers and clients with a tool of design.

References

[1]

Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Massachusetts: HarvardUniversity Press.[2] Broadbent, Geoffrey. (1988). Design in Architecture: Architecture and the

Human Sciences. London: David Fulton Publishers.[3] Cherry, Edith. (1999). Programming for Design: from Theory to Practice. New

York, Chichester, Weinheim, Brisbane, Singapore, and Toronto: John Wiley &Sons, Inc.

[4] Dahabreh, Saleem M. (2006). The Formulation of Design: The Case of the IslipCourthouse by Richard Meier. PhD Dissertation. Georgia Institute ofTechnology.

[5] Dahabreh, Saleem M. (2014). Establishing Connectivity Graphs as a Functional

Genotypes of Federal Courthouse Buildings. In International Journal ofEngineering Research and Applications, Volume 4:2pp 407-412

[6] Green, Allan. (1994). Courthouse Design: A handbook for Judges and CourtAdministrators.

[7] Hardenbergh, Don, et. al. (1998). The Courthouse: a planning and design guidefor court facilities. 2nd edition. Williamsburg: National Center for State Courts.

[8] Hillier, B., Hanson, J., Peponis, J.. (1984). What do we mean by BuildingFunction. In James A. Powell (et. al.), Designing for Building Utilization.London, New York: Spon.

[9] Hillier, B., Hanson, J. (1984). The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge; NewYork: Cambridge University Press.


12/12


[10] Hillier, Bill. (2007). Space is the Machine: a configurational theory ofarchitecture. Cambridge; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.

[11]

Mitchell, William J. (1990). The Logic of Architecture: Design, Computation,and Cognition. Cambridge; Massachusetts, London, England: The MIT Press.

[12] Moneo, Rafael. (1978). On Typology. Oppositions summer 13. MIT Press.[13] National Center for State Courts. 1994. The Courthouse: A Planning and design

Guide for Court facilities.[14] Ömer, Akin. (2002). Case-based instruction strategies in architecture. Design

Studies volume 23, issue 4,Pages 407-431. Retrieved on January 2003fromhttps://www.library.gatech.edu/ejournals_frame.htm

[15] Oxman, Rivka. (1990). Prior knowledge in design: a dynamic knowledge basedmodel for design and creativity. Design studies Vol. 11, No. 1pp 17-28

[16]

Phillips, Todd S., Criebel. (2003). Justice Facilities. New Jersey: John Wileyand Sons Inc.[17] State of California Task Force on Court Facilities, (1999)[18] U.S. Courts Design Guide, 2007.[19] White, Edward T. (1972). Introduction to Architectural Programming. Tucson:

Architectural Media.

saleem m dahabreh _ ijaer__pp 5709-5720 (1)

Documents