by Beverly J. Prior, AIA

The federal courthouse projects stood out in the just-published AIA Committee on Architecture for Justice 2004–2005 Justice Facilities Review for their full expression of design intent and quality. Of the five projects that received citations in this, the 25th year of the facilities review’s existence, three were federal courthouses. Clearly, the General Services Administration is a client committed to enduring contributions to the built environment—and it has the capital resources to implement that vision. The jury recognized there are significant budgetary advantages in federal courthouses compared to the leaner budgets of local- and state-funded projects.

The other two projects that received jury citations—a family law center and a regional communications and emergency coordination center, both designed by RossDrulisCusenbury—were striking in their exquisite design expression and commitment to addressing the human and social needs of the facilities’ users.

The importance of high-quality civic design
In many ways, the jury was encouraged by the submissions this year. In seeking projects with technical excellence as well as design excellence, the overall standard was high. At a time when concerns about building security can lead owners and architects toward a “bunker response,” creating opaque and dense buildings, the jury was heartened to see so many projects with innovative and subtle security solutions. Many of the sites and buildings were open, light, and welcoming to the public.

Although a building’s imagery can be driven by the client, the jury had negative feelings toward façadism and tacky historicism. We wondered what future generations will say about our values. Modern buildings can draw on the historical context, but with modern construction techniques and budgets. It is very seldom, for example, that we see a historical design executed faithfully. We found the rare exception this year in the U.S. Courthouse in Montgomery, Ala., by Burganier Davis Sims Architects Associated and associate architect/security Spillis Candela DMJM—one of this year’s citation winners.

The challenges, opportunities, and design responses to law enforcement, juvenile and adult detention, corrections, and courthouse facilities are part of a discourse in which architects, owners, and operators will continue to engage. After reviewing individual projects, the jury reflected on elements to emulate and those to avoid in each project type.

Law enforcement facilities
In law enforcement projects, transparency of the process and the building are key issues. If the flow of police operations doesn’t work, the building doesn’t work. As public buildings, however, it is equally important that a connection to the community be expressed in architecture of law enforcement facilities. What is the message to the community at the front door, the lobby, and the community room? How is the legacy of the agency communicated? We need to avoid the appearance of law enforcement facilities being fortresses with small windows and a small, uninviting lobby.

Courthouses
In courthouse design, the jury recognized that courtroom corner benches for judges work functionally but architecturally are very difficult for providing lighting, prominence of the judge, and balance in the room. Security screening stations in courthouse and other justice facilities often appeared as an afterthought—tacked onto a facility, not integrated into the overall design, and with undersized queuing space. Given today’s omnipresent need for security screening and the challenge to design it appropriately, this is a possible opportunity for the AIA Committee on Architecture for Justice to develop a position paper and design guidelines.

Juvenile detention facilities
Many of the juvenile detention facilities looked adult-like. The jury had a real concern about the “lock-them-up” approach as very few of the facilities seemed to support treatment programs. We saw statewide juvenile prototype models that were stripped to the minimum. In addition to these prototype facilities lacking a therapeutic environment, the jury believed the architecture should be site-specific.

Adult detention complexes
In general, the adult detention submissions were disappointing because they were lacking in innovation. Although the jury was pleased to see that most facilities appeared to have direct supervision in pod-based dayrooms, we observed a lot of backsliding on recent improvements. Many had no daylight in dayrooms, and there was a sense of warehousing people rather than attempting rehabilitation.

Corrections projects
In corrections projects, the jury was disheartened by the cookie-cutter federal prisons, the potentially dangerous layouts, and the operational need to move inmates too much. The mega-scale of some facilities seemed counter to the opportunity to do it right.

Multiple-use justice facilities
The jury reflected on the question of what is communicated to the community with multiple-use justice facilities that have a courthouse and a jail in the same justice center. Yes, there are operational advantages, such as reduced transportation requirements. But is the real communication one of “turnstile justice”?

Specialty projects
The jury was intrigued by several specialty projects that were submitted, including large training facilities with shooting ranges, mock border patrol stations, forensics facilities, Immigration and Naturalization Service facilities, and emergency operations centers. Although one emergency operations center did earn a jury citation, unfortunately many of the other specialty projects did not meet the jury’s standards for publication.

Participating in a jury like this is an enriching opportunity for the jurors. We see firsthand the projects being developed around the country, and we engage with each other about what makes a functional building and good, perhaps even great architecture.

Copyright 2004 The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. Home Page