RETROSPECTIVE OF COURTHOUSE DESIGN :

1991-2001

Don Hardenbergh and Todd S. Phillips, Editors

L

The National Center for State Courts

Library National Center C o r State Courts 300 Newpwt qve. W il licn;s L u r v 2 h d W

Williamsburg, Va.

- O (

JURORS
R. Dhar, FRAlC Director, Industry and Government Relations Toronto, Ontario Canada Hon. Conrad L. Rushing Superior Court o f California San Jose, CA Wayne Drummond, FAlA Dean College o f Architecture University o f Nebraska Lincoln, NE Greg Langham Court Administrator Eighteenth Judicial District Aurora, Colorado Frank Greene, AlA Ricci Associates-Architects and Planners New York. NY

EDlTORS
D o n Hardenbergh, President Court Works Williamsburg, VA Todd Phillips, Ph.D, AlA International Center for Courts Design Research Washington, DC

PROJECT MANAGER
Chang-Ming Yeh The National Center for State Courts Denver, CO

MANAGlNG EDlTOR
Charles Campbell The National Center for State Courts Williamsburg, VA

COURT MANAGEMENT CON SULTANT

Stacey Salomonsen-Saute1 The National Center for State Courts Denver, CO

GRAPHlC ARTlST
Hisako Sayers Newport News, VA

ON THE COVER: The Scott M. Matheson Courthouse, Salt Lake City. Published by The National Center for State Courts, 300 Newport Avenue (23185), P.O. Box 8798, Williamsburg, VA 231 87-8798
Copyright 2001, The National Center for State Courts All rights reserved ISBN: 0-89656-212-3 Library o f Congress Catalog Card Number: 2001094673

Table of Contents
Introduction-Don Hardenbergh and Todd Phillips. Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Courthouses as Anchors for Communities-Frank Greene AGood Start-Todd Phillips vii xii xiii

......................................

...........................................................

Alternative Dispute Resolution: Space Beyond the Counter and the Courtroom-Gregory C . Langham Providing for Pro Se Litigans-Don Hardenbergh

.............................

xiv x iv

............................................

UNITED STATES COURTHOUSES

Thr Alfred A . Arraj United States Courthouse-Denver. CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bruce R . Thompson United States Courthouse and Federal Building-Reno. NV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carl B. Stokes United States Federal Courthouse-Cleveland, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charles Evans Whittaker U.S. Federal Courthouse-Kansas City, MO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse-Nrw York. NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evo A . Deconcini U.S. Courthouse-Tucson. AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fcderal Building and Courthouse-Oakland. CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal Building and U.S. District Courthouse-Wheeling. WV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harold J . Donohue Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse-Worcester. MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Howard H . Baker. Jr., U.S. Courthouse-Knoxville. TN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark 0. Hatfield United States Courthouse-Portland. OR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Martin Luther King. Jr., Federal Courthouse-Newark. NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quentin Burdick Federal Courthouse-Fargo. ND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ronald Reagan Federal Building and United States Courthouse-Santa Ana. CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sam M . Gibbons U S . Courthouse-Tampa. FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thomas F. Eaglcton U.S. Courthouse-St . Louis. MO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United States Courthouse-Montgomery. AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United States Courthouse-Sacramento. CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United States Courthouse-Ft . Myers. FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United States Courthouse-Orlando. FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United States Courthouse-London. KY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United States Courthouse-Gulfport. MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United States Courthouse-Laredo. TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United States Courthouse-St . Croix. VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United States Courthouse and Federal Building-Fresno. CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United States Courthouse and Post Office-Brooklyn. NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United States District Courthousr-Albuquerque. NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U.S. Federal Courthouse-Brownsville TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 6 8
10

12 16 18 20 22 26 28 32 34 36 40 42
44

46 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68

...
Ill

STATE APPELLATE COURTS

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal Courthouse.Gretna. LA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 74 76 80 Iowa Judicial Branch Building-Des Moines. IA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michigan Hall of Justice-Lansing. MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oklahoma Judicial Center-Oklahoma City. OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GENERAL JURISDICTION TRIAL COURTS

CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alachua County Courthouse4ainesville. FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anne Arundel County Courthouse.Annapolis. MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Adams County Justice Center.Brighton. 86
88 90

........................................ Brunswick County Courthouse.Bolivia. NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Butler County Courthouse-El Dorado. KS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Camden County Justice Center.Camdenton. MO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charleston County Historic Courthouse-Charleston. SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charlotte County Courthouse-Punta Gorda. FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chesapeake Circuit and General District Courts Building.Chesapeake. VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Denton County Courts Building-Dcnton. TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edward W. Brooke Courthouse for Suffolk County.Boston. MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fayette County Courthouse Complex.Lexington. KY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fenton Judicial Center.Lawrence. MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harold R . Banke Justice Center.Jonesboro. GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harris County Criminal Justice Center.Houston. TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kent County Courthouse-Grand Rapids. MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . King County Regional Justice Center.Kent. WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Klamath Falls County Courthouse and Administration Buildings-Klamath Falls. OR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laclede County Government Center.Lebanon. MO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lexington County Courthouse.Lexington. SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mesa County Justice Center-Grand Junction. CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mills E . Godwin. Jr., Courts Building.Suffolk. VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nesbett Courthouse-Anchorage. AK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The New Queens Civil Court-New York. NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oconee County Courthouse.Walhalla. SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orange County Courthouse Complex.Orlando. FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Osceola County Government Center.Kissimmee. FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pinellas County Criminal Courts Complex.Clearwater. FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robert A . Christensen Justice Center-Castle Rock. CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Diego North County Regional Center.Vista. CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scott County Justice Center.Shakopee. MN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Blair County Courthouse Addition.Hollidaysburg.
PA

92 94 96 98 100 102 104 106

108

112 114
118 120 122 124

126 128 130 132 134 136 138 142 144 148
150

154 156 158

iv

Scott M . Matheson Courthouse-Salt Lake City. UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St . Johns County Courthouse-St . Augustine. FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Taney County Government Complex-Forsyth. MO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Travis County Criminal Justice Center-Austin. TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Warren County Justice Center-Bowling Green. KY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Waterbury Superior Courthouse-Hartford. CT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wyoming County Courthouse-Warsaw. NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . York County Judicial Center-York. PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

......
...... ...... ...... ...... ......

160 162 164 166 168

170

...... ......

172 176

MUNICIPAL AND LIMITED JURISDICTION COURTS

Clayton G . Graham Public Safety Building-Atlantic City. NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dakota County Western Services-Apple Valley. MN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Girard Justice Center-Girard. OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kentwood Justice Center-Kentwood. MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phoenix Municipal Courthouse-Phoenix. AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robert F. Sweeney District Courts Building-Annapolis. MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
180

182
184

186
188

190

FAMILY AND JUVENILE COURTS

. . . . . . . . . . 194 196 Juvenile and Family Courts.Newark. NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lane County Juvenile Justice Center.Eugene. OR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 200 Miami-Dade County Family Court.Miami. FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Middlesex County Family Courthouse-New Brunswick. NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 Queens Family Court and Family Agency Facility.Jamaica. NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 208 Ramsey County Juvenile and Family Justice Center.St . Paul. MN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chesterfield County Juvenile and Domestic RelationslFamily Courts Building.Chesterfield. VA

R ENOVATlONSI REST0RAT10NSI AN D ADD IT10NS

Boietourt Couniy General District Courthouse.Fincastle. VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Escambia County Judicial Center Expansion/Renovation.Pensacola. FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grant County Courthouse Addition and Remodeling.Lancaster. WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greensville County Courthouse Additions and Renovations.Emporia. VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 214 216 220

INDEX OF ARCHITECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

222

Introduction
Don Hardenberqh and Todd S. Phillips, Editors
This Retrospective of Courthouse Design, 1991-2001, continues the process begun a decade ago with the publication in 1992 of the first Refrospeclive. The earlier publication featured court projects from the 1980s, primarily. This book attempts to capture noteworthy prqjects from the remarkable 1990s. The projects were submitted in response to a Call for Entries issued by The National Center for State Courts during the winter of 2000 to 2001. The entries were then reviewed by a jury composed of justice system professionals and courts-planning and design professionals. International Conference on Courthouse Design, held in Washington, D.C., in 1992, and attention to courts was stimulated further by the Design Excellence initiative associated with the huge courthouse construction program launched by the federal government. Equally significant, however, were the several other dynamics-accessibility, security, and technologythat converged suddenly on the courts design process during the 1990s. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) at the beginning of the decade heightened the awareness of accessibility issues, forcing designers to take every part of a facility back to the drawing board with the needs of the physically disabled in mind. Then the tragic bombing in 1995 of the federal building in Oklahoma City sent a shock wave of concern about the security of people, buildings, and other critical assets. Finally, rapid advances in various electronicsbased court technologies for use in both the courtroom and office areas raised a host of new planning and design problems. tions located on lower floors or close to the main entrance? Was the facility accessible from the sidewalk or street and easy to navigate once inside? Was it safe? The criteria involving judicial image were in part an open question. The Retrospective jurors recognized that there are no set rules . about the best way to define and convey the face of justice. Nonetheless, they paid special attention to how the architecture expressed the importance of the courts and their role in community life. Their concerns included the relationship of the courts to other justice operations, such as law enforcement and detention, and the need to keep courts from looking like police stations or jails. The problems often raised by other non-justice-related operations wcre also kept in mind. Was a convincing judicial image compromised, for example, by the presence of unrelated offices or even commercial rental space? The Call for Entries also asked the design firms to address some technical questions involving building performance issues and pro-ject delivery methods. The growing attention in recent years to whole building and green design issues, among others, led to the requesi for information in these areas, where there may be major change in coming years.

The Decade 1991-2001

The past decade has witnessed unprecedented change. The vocabulary of courts design-our ways of talking about the issues-grew significantly with the development of new design guidance materials for state and federal facilities. Key attributes of successful design were identified in the language of the US Courts Design Guide (USCDG) published initially in 1992. The USCDG spoke explicitly to designers about such things as the importance of dignity, solemnity, hierarchy, and permanence in courts buildings. At the same timc, the first edition of The National Centers state courts design guide, The Courthouse: A Planning and Design Guide for Court Facilities, addressed fundamentals of facility planning in a single, easy-to-use document. These materials built upon the earlier, pioneering contributions of Walter Sobel, FAIA, and others as notably presented in The American Courthouse, published by the American Bar Association in 1973. Several national conferences on the subject also were held during the decade, including the First

The Call for Entries: Criteria and interests

The Call for Entries emphasized two main criteria: basic functionality and judicial image. While nothing hard and fast was specified, it was important that submitted projects demonstrate compliance with the minimum standards for a modern and operationally funciional courthouse. Did a project contain, for example, three distinct circulation systems for the public, for judges and staff, and for prisoners? Were there distinct public, private, secure, and interface zones? Were high-trafficvolumc and public service func-

Profile of the Projects

Eighty-nine projects were chosen for the Retrospective. Twentyeight, or 31 percent, of the projects are federal, while most of the projects (48 percent) are loosely described as statelcounty general trial courts. This latter category includes courts with general jury trial jurisdiction over civil, crimivii

nal, and family matters. Most of these projects include more than one type of jurisdiction, but there are two-the New Queens Civil Courthouse (New York) and the Pinellas County Criminal Courts Building (Florida)-with single jurisdiction. Most of these projects also house a mixture of general jurisdiction and limited jurisdiction (traffic, misdemeanors, etc.) cases, as well as some special jurisdictions, such as domestic relations or drug courts. Another small group of projects (six projects) are strictly family or juvenile courts, such as the Queens Family Court (New York) and the MiamilDade County Family Court. The latter is a renovation project but is categorized for organizational purposes as a family juvenile project to highlight the special and unique nature of family and juvenile courts. The Retrospective also includes five projects, such as the Phoenix Municipal Courthouse, that are strictly limited or municipal courts with jurisdiction over misdemeanor or ordinances, traffic cases, and minor civil cases. Several of these are mixed-use municipal courts and police facilities, such as the Clayton G. Graham Public Safety Building in Atlantic City. The other two groups of projects are four appellate courts (Oklahoma Judicial Center, the Iowa Judicial Branch Building, the Michigan Hall of Justice, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Building in Gretna, Louisiana) and four projects that are renovations of historic structures. The projects span the entire spectrum of size from the 13,000 GSF Botetourt County Courthouse in Fincastle, Virginia, to the 1,050,000
Vlll

Table 1: Size o f Projects Gross Square Feet Under 50,000

51,000 to 100,000 101,000 to 150,000 151,000 to 200,000

No. of Projects
6 16
13

O/o

o f Projects
7

18 15 15
13 9

13 11 8

201,000 to 300,000
300,0000 to 400,000

Over 400,000

20

23

Two projects contained parking or other space in the total that could not be separated.

Table 2: Number of Courtrooms per Project Number o f Courtrooms

1 to 2

No. o f Projects
10

010

o f Projects
11

3 to 5 6 to 10
11 to 20

20
16
30 13

22
18 34 15

over 20

GSF Oakland Federal Building and Courthouse in Oakland, California (see Table 1). Twenty-three percent of the projects exceeded 400,000 GSF, while 25 percent were under 100,000 GSF. Most, but not all, of the larger projects are federal. The 460,000 GSF Superior Court of New Jerseys Juvenile and Family Courts building in Esscx County and the 785,000 GSF King County Justice Center in Kent, Washington, are good examples of large countyfunded/owned facilities.
Nearly half of all the projects have eleven or more courtrooms, and thirteen, or 15 percent, have over twenty courtrooms (see Table 2). These large facilities span nearly all types of projects from federal courts, such as the U.S. Court-

house in Sacramento with thirtytwo courtrooms, to municipal and limited jurisdiction courts, such as the Phoenix Municipal Court with forty courtrooms. A number of courthouses, such as the York County Judicial Center in York, Pennsylvania, have shelled space for future courtrooms. Nearly all projects were funded through government appropriations, including nearly all of the federal projects, or through the use of general revenue bonds (see Table 3). One project used leasc revenue bonds (Chesterfield County Juvenile and Domestic Relations/Family Courts Building, Chesterfield, Virginia). One of the few exceptions to federal use of appropriations was the Charles

...

Table 3: Funding of Projects

Funding Method
Appropriation Bonds COPS Court Fees Sales or Special Tax Lease Revenue Bonds Private Donations (Historic) Unknown

No. o f Projects
38

O/o

o f Projects
43

31
1

35
1

2 9
1 1

2
10
1 1

Evans Whittaker U.S. Federal Courthouse in Kansas City, Missouri, which was financed with certificates of participation. Ten percent of the projects (nine) used a special tax to raise funds for construction or to pay off debt. Among these projects are the Pinellas County Criminal Courts Complex in Clearwater, Florida; the Taney County Government Complex in Forsyth, Missouri; and the Harold R. Banke Justice Center in Clayton County, Georgia. Finally, seventy of the projects used the traditional delivery method of design/bid/build. Among the exceptions were two designlbuild projects: the Middlesex County Family Courthouse in New Jersey and the State of Connecticut Superior Courthouse in Waterbury. Nine of the remaining projects used construction management. Among these projects are the Howard H. Baker, Jr., U.S. Courthouse in Knoxville, Tennessee; the Orange County Courthouse Complex in Orlando, Florida; and the Warren County Justice Center in Bowling Green, Kentucky.

Genera I 0bservat ions

Image ofJustice. The image of justice expressed on the exteriors of courts prqjects takes many different forms in the work illustrated here. There is no single architectural style, nor even a dominant one. Numerous projects reflect the appeal of traditional architectural elements associated with courthouses for many years. Columns, pediments, rotunda forms, and other references to "temple of justice" classicism remain important. For example, two new state supreme court projects, among others, indicate that a comparatively conservative approach to judicial imagery is as alive and well in 2001 as it was ten years ago, or fifty years ago for that matter. Moreover, it appears to be equally ippealing in all parts of the country, rather than in one or two regions only, and it shows up in every scale of project, small to large. Nontraditional imagery is also evident in projects where the architecture relies on abstract forms, and the interplay of different opaque and transparent materials,

to convey the significance of the building. Both sleek and expressionistic forms appear in various prqjects of every jurisdiction around the country. In some cases, the forms are influenced directly by other buildings nearby-whether high-rise office towers in a dense urban setting or a lowrise structure that is being integrated with the new construction on a retrofit or adaptive reuse basis. In other cases, the nontraditional forms seem to take their cue from the natural environment. Distant views and sun angles, for example, have been primary design influences in some cases. Although the architectural styles vary, most projects reflect an awareness of the civic presence of the courthouse. Several projects show very strong relationships with long ceremonial axes that are anchored by other public buildings or urban landmarks. The courthouse is clearly conceived as one element in a formal relationship with others, and landscaped space plays a large role. Other projects are more tied into the grain of a street grid and include plaza and entrance treatments that help to make the place feel special. Kelatively few projects are entirely freestanding in open sites that are still waiting for a context to develop around them. More important, there are no signs in the work illustrated here that the image of justice is retreating generally into a fortress-like architecture of fear. The question of an appropriate judicial image is being interpreted variously across a range of scales and building sites. Some projects show a tough face behind a row of protective bollards, but on the whole the concerns about courthouse security are being handled architecturally
ix

in a skillful, low-key manner. As the issue of security has grown, the techniques for providing it have evolved, and it is clear that many designs are also emphasizing both the fact and the spirit of accessibility. Many projects show deliberate efforts to preserve as much openness as possible at the point where the public approaches and enters the building.

than would have appeared in a building program a decade ago. Facilities handling domestic violence matters also tend to show more attention to safe and secure spaces for women and children. Change is reflected, too, in the number of facilities that now provide atiorneylprisoner interview booths either on the court floors or at the central holding areas. Such interview rooms make it easier for attorneys to talk with their clients and in the long run speed the disposition of cases.

Only a few courtrooms to date exhibit the latest court technologies and associated building support systems, but the architectural and technical challenges posed by them are being rapidly demystified by projects in the lead. There are no signs to date of large and omnipresent video screens heralding a new era of "virtual justice." Natural daylight, rather than electronics, may be the emerging architectural issue in courtroom design. A number of recent pr0.jects feature court floor configurations in which the courtroom has been located next to a perimeter wall with windows. The layouts have dealt with security issues a n d controlled circulation in ways that make it possible to introduce daylight and even outdoor views.

Basic Planning and Zoning. The projects show that the fundamentals of building zoning and controlled circulation have been widely accepted. The art of courthouse planning has advanced in that respect. Efficient court sets and court floor configurations are ty-pical, and the techniques for achieving them are now so widely understood that designers are set fiee to consider imaginative variations and subtle enhancements of space.
Several projects have judicial suites of clustered chambers located away fTom the courtrooms. While this has been encouraged for many years, it seems now that there are more projects where this is occurring. A few projects also have more chambers than courtrooms, indicating that arrangements for sharing courtrooms are in place. Mastery of planning and zoning fundamentals has also mada it easier to respond successfully to some changing functional demands that have arisen over the last ten years. More space for mediation and alternative dispute resolution processes, for example, has become necessary in many places. While much of the mediation activity occurs outside the courthouse, much also takes place inside the courthouse in conference spaces. Several projects show greater amounts of conference space devoted to mediation
X

Courtrooms. Courtroom design

continues to emphasize dignity and decorum. The traditional geometry of courtroom space-determined by sightlines, acoustics, and optimal distances between the bench, witness box, jurors, attorneys, and spectators-is not changing. There appears to be a greater number of corner benches, or combinations of corner and center benches in the same project, especially in the lower courts with limited jurisdiction, but the overall arrangement of courtroom elements in relation to each other is remaining stable, despite the introduction of new court technologies for the presentation of evidence and arguments. Since the first Retrospective in the early 199Os, display technology has flooded into many courtrooms, initially in the form of chunky computer monitors, and there has been considerable discussion in the last five or six years about how to accommodate display technology in the most unobtrusive and transparent way possible. The projects illustrated in this Retrospective suggest that court designers are learning quickly how to handle the demands of a technology-intensive courtroom.

Adin in is frorive and Support Spaces. Administrative and "back-of-the-house'' support areas are generally not illustrated in photographs as extensively as courtrooms and chambers, and indeed, these support areas have too often been treated as architectural afterthoughts in the past. However, the plan and section drawings with many of the current projects show fresh attention to the importance of well-conceived office space. Although the details of individual workstation design are rarely seen in the graphic material, the location of the clerks' and other offices can be seen, and it is clear that issues of adjacency, access, and even amenity have been well thought out in numerous instances.
Some of the technical data submitted with the projects indicates that office areas are being designed according to the latcst thinking about high-quality space for improved productivity.

Integrated environmental controls for indoor climate and light, raised flooring for both flexihility with cable management and air handling, and proximity to a window wall for a view to the outdoors are features of some projects. Several others show the skillful use of existing buildings next door or across the street for the consolidation of some administrative or support operations. Public Areas. The approach to the front door of the courthouse is grandly processional in some projects and modest, quick, and almost matter-of-fact in others. Many prqjects include outdoor public spaces and exhibit a clear desire to be user friendly and inviting at the sidewalk level. Some hold back a dramatic sense of arrival until after one has stepped inside the entrance lobby. Public art, including large-scale murals, plays a noteworthy role. Entrance lobby areas often contain freestanding and undisguised security-screening devices; many have clearly been added to the projects after they were designed. A few more recent projects show attempts to soften the appearance of security devices by integrating them into millwork and walls. Main public-gathering points, especially jury assembly areas, have been very well designed for both dignity and durability. Designers have handled spaces that have to withstand heavy use by large numbers of people in ways that still include quality materials, subtle detailing, and natural light. The story behind one family court project illustrated here-where the initial court floor layout in plan was flipped during the design process to maximize daylight and acoustical con-

trol in family-waiting areas outside courtrooms-is indicative of increased attention to the experiences of individual citizens. Child-care areas are also provided in some projects. Several states recently have begun to encourage the inclusion of waiting and care space for children of litigants and jurors in their courthouses. More attention is also being given to child victims and witnesses who require space that is comfortable and safe. Public counter design where citizens and clerks interact is certainly a priority in most of the projects, and accommodations for the physically disabled are features of the work in recent years. Signage and directions are also taken seriously. What is not clear, however, is how much design effort and square footage are being devoted to public information areas that are geared to the growing number of pro se, or self-represented, litigants. It is known that the challenges posed by pro se litigants, many of whom do not speak English, are heing addressed by at least a dozen states that have established court information centers of some kind. Numerous courts are also using the Internet to disseminate public information. But the architectural impact on courthouse design of expanded public information functions is not clearly visible. It appears too soon to tell on this point.

for judicial operations to be housed together beneath the same roof in architecturally distinguished buildings, but it is otherwise evolving in its parts and at its margins. Some of the most noteworthy evolution is occurring under the surface at the level of building infrastructure and the way things go together. Vertical circulation systems, telecommunications backbones, integrated building services-all are being handled by design teams with growing sophistication. There is an increased awareness of building performance issues, from reduced operations and maintenance costs to higher-quality workspace. The interest in true fitness for purpose and flexibility is greater now than in former times. Indeed, the issue of flexibility may be the single most noteworthy theme running discretely through the last several years of courthouse design work. Both the architects statements and the technical information that accompanied many of the projects talked about the need to design for changing functions in the future. Sometimes the anticipation of change influenced the sizing of structural bays or decisions about raised flooring; sometimes it was a key determinant in site selection. In all cases together, however, the courthouse has emerged from the last ten years as an even more fascinating and vibrant design challcnge than it has ever bccn before.

Conclusions
Taken as a whole, the projects are striking for the diversity they represent. They reveal the courthouse to be a dynamic and multifaceted facility, not static and one-dimensional. It remains firmly rooted in traditional conceptions that call
xi

Courthouses as Anchors for Communities

Frank Greene
The American courthouse, once, in Faulkners words musing, brooding, symbolic and ponderable, has changed. As demonstrated by the projects in this Retrospecfiue, the new American courthouse represents a growing trend for the justice system to welcome public use, to make transparent its workings, and to add new meaning to its rich traditions. The best of this generation of courthouses respects the value of those traditions while reflecting the contemporary spirit of our ever-changing society. The projects selected for this publication fall all across the spectrum from classic traditionalist to edgy modernist. The most successful projects in this Refrospectii/e-whether federal, stale, county, or city; large or small; modern or traditional; grandly or modestly conceivedare those whose purpose is clear, whose presence reinforces a communitys sense of itself, and whose imagery conveys both the dignity of the law and the importance of the citizens who seek justice there. The traditional imagery of the courthouse, whether its a WPAera limestone neoclassical palazzo or a Georgian red brick block with a colonnaded portico, has yielded to contemporary expressions based on the desire for daylight in the public spaces, for legibility in building organization, and for a more-nuanced relationship of the new courthouses to their often historic contexts. This freedom from orthodoxy has produced a range of work that is remarkable, with design themes that draw from nearby traditions as well as spirited modernist abstractions. The setting of a new courthouse is crucial to its ability to serve its
xii

functional and symbolic roles. In many cases, great pains have been taken to site a new courthouse in proximity to an existing, often historic courthouse in the civic center of its community. In certain cases, however, a new courthouse is on a green field site, surrounded by a sea of parking, convenient only to the highway cloverleaf. Instead of anchoring a community, it becomes an outpost of sprawl. Without convenient pedestrian connections to the lawyers offices, coffee shops, and the existing civic buildings fronting on the public square or green, these new sprawl-based courthouses require automobile trips for each minor need, adding to roadway congestion and betraying the critical role of civic structures in developing legible communities. The two ways in which courthouses can be used to build comniunities-either as insertions to an existing set of civic buildings or as key elements in planning new communities-are in evidence in many of the projects selected for this Retrospective. Where a new courthouse is divorced from context, however successful it may be from the standpoints of internal planning or architectural symbolism, it fails in its fundamental mission as an anchor of community identity. The strategy seen in several of these projects of adding to an existing historic courthouse in a way that gives new life to the old building is to be applauded. These projects are important for their economy in reuse of historic resources, for their impact in reinforcing community identity, and for the resulting rich dialogue between old and new.

The problem statement of courthouse design-that is, solving for criteria of functional efficiency and appropriate architectural imagery and managing the complexities of public process-has in recent years called for a higher level of performance from designers due to concerns for barrierfree design, sustainable design, and response to terrorist threats. Added to this mix is the simple problem of scale, where urban courthouses have become enormous buildings of over a million square feet with dozens of often specialized courtrooms. To produce buildings that communicate the dignity of the law and respect for citizens at this scale is a daunting task, and where the designers have maintained an elevated civic spirit in these giant structures is an outstanding achievement. It is not surprising that many of the most successful projects are those of modest scale, and often of modest means. It is simply not enough to solve the functional diagram and cloak it in rhetoric of civic architecture. Real caring for the quality of light, for the experience of the procession from curbside to courtroom, and for the place of the building in the community are the final measures of a courthouse that leaves a fitting legacy for future generations.

A Good Start
Todd

S. Phillips
that standards are being raised. The criteria involving image, fimctionality, intelligent and sustainable brick and mortar, and safety are all hot topics. Architects are thinking and talking about these criteria and producing work of increasing sophistication. Perhaps we fail to say enough, however, about how courthouses should not inadvertently denigrate. They should not convey the message, "We don't care . . . What's important to you is not important to us," either through the obvious Shortcomings of shabby materials and substandard space or, equally disconcerting at times, through design maneuvers that bear no relation to what may be on the citizen's mind.
A woman in a domestic violence

The courthouses illustrated here tell us a lot about how courthouse design has progressed in the last ten years. We see tremendous energy focused on a number of design criteria that have steadily evolved in recent years. Some of the criteria were highlighted in the early 1990s when issues of civic presence and the symbolic power of good courtroom layouts were reaffirmed with the federal courts construction program. These criteria have been refined and extended through the 1990s to accommodate the sudden intrusion of new court technologies and to include much more attention to the space needs of all court staff. We are seeing more-balanced buildings in which the court clerks and allied professionals, not just the judges, are getting better space. Portions of the courthouse that used to be cramped and windowless are now being designed with light and air. More-demanding criteria for building performance at the level of structure and shell, and of integrated delivery systems for building services, have also come to the forefront. Several new projects-some still under construction-are pointing toward a next generation of "green" courthouse design that may have far-reaching implications for the architectural image of justice in the future. Finally, there is security, of course-the one many-headed criterion that can seize control of a courthouse design discussion and tie it into a knot. Security is, on the whole, being handled architecturally with commendable restraint.
So far, so good. These projects overall confirm that new challenges are being addressed and

So, what else is left to do? If there are other design criteria that still remain to be stressed, it would seem to this observer that they focus on the experience of the individual citizen. The ordinary citizen's voice is seldom heard in design decision-making processes. How does the courts design problem look from this vantage point? What happens to citizens when they enter the jaws of the system like Jonah and the whale? This may ultimately be the hardest part of the problem for a project to get right.
The desire to make buildings that stand out, even when the construction budget is at rock bottom, has tempted some projects into the big gesture that can be read through a windshield from 300 yards away. Such projects can create positive expectations of dignity and permanence from a distance that may collapse when one gets up closr. The expectations may fall apart by the time one tugs on the handle of the front door. The big gesture backfires when the detailing is coarse, the materials cheap, and the scale overblown. We often comment that the architectural expression of the majesty of the law should not be unduly intimidating. Courthouses should not be mysterious and scary. Almost everyone agrees on this point, as witnessed by the efforts of many designers to create a feeling of openness and transparency.

court may be more appreciative of a safe and quiet place in which to read the fine print of a protective order than she is of a dramatic architectural form above the entrance. Privacy partitions along a counter may be more important to the person who wants to discuss something with a clerk than is the cornice line where the building meets the sky. If these smaller things are not worked out, the big things can miss the point. Design priorities that emphasize the positive experience of the citizen-that reach down to an individual human scale at the most literally hands-on level-have much to do with craftsmanship, quality materials, and common sense where it counts. The best projects achieve an alignment with what the citizen can grasp, both perceptually and conceptually. People whose liberties and property are on the line expect to be taken seriously. They can sense when the designer of a building has considered the things that are important to them, or not. Instructions to designers for how to bring all the criteria together on behalf of the citizen do not show up in design guidelines materials or in the typical coverage by the
...

'

Xlll

architectural press. Most of what we know about the more-subtle things exists in scattered places as a kind of architectural lore. Fortunately, this Retrospective includes some projects that show

great regard for the citizen and that succeed architecturally on a human scale. They have managed-sometimes in the face of crippling budgets and overloaded occupancy programs-to make spaces for citizens that feel right

and work. The accomplishments are often quiet and low key, almost by definition. They are invaluable examples of what can be done as we look ahead to the next ten years.

Alternative Dispute Resolution: Space Beyond the Counter and the Courtroom
Gregory C. Langham

As court caseloads increase from year to year, courts often are unable to add new judges quickly enough, with the result that judges in many of our nations courts are handling larger and larger caseloads. This causes backlogs and delays in the disposition of cases. Courts have tried a number of remedies to respond to these problems, including greater use of nonjudicial staff to expedite cases, greater use of masters or referees to handle certain caseloads, greater use of technology aimed at improving efficiency, and expanded use of alternative dispute resolution methods, such as mediation, to encourage litigants to settle their disputes outside the courtroom.

this Retrospective to incorporate facilities for such functions into their design. And in the future, more and more judges, court managers, and architects charged with designing future courthouses, as well as renovating or remodeling older buildings, need to consider including spaces to accommodate case disposition methods outside the traditional courtroom setting. The expanding use of alternative or appropriate disposition methods other than court hearings or trials is requiring courthouse designs to accommodate more conference space or to consider how such spaces as jury deliberation rooms or attorney-client conference rooms might also be used for mediation. Within such space, judges, case managers, facilitators,

and mediators can assist parties in achieving agreement on specific legal issues that may otherwise require more court time and resources than currently available. By having such designated setllement space, the court expands the resolution process to allow for more methods of case disposition. Settlement space can easily accommodate discussions and negotiations geared toward resolving domestic, family, or civil disputes. The concept of courts offering multidoor access to alternative dispute resolution services can best be accommodated through the design and location of specific court space capable of facilitating such services and additional court functions:

The need to anticipate such trends has led some courts included in

Providing for Pro Se Litigants

Don Hardenbergh
Many of the projects presented in this Retrospective dem o nst ra te recent trends or emphasis on openness, transparency, and accessihility in courthouse design. Greg
xiv

Langham in his essay noted the increase in the use of mediation and the need for court facilities to accommodate alternative adjudicatory processes outside the court-

room. Todd Phillips in his essay noted that many of the projects focus on the grand and grandiose while neglecting the small things that make the court environment

more functional and friendly to those who come to court under stress and in agony, including the back office work areas and public accommodation areas. But what are the trends that will shape tomorrow's courthouses? One that I believe will become more important during the next decade is increased attention given to pro se litigants. While most litigants coming before our courts are represented by counsel, a growing number are unable to afford lawyers' fees or are choosing not to hire counsel to represent them. Valuable judicial time is spent explaining the law or otherwise "managing" pro se litigation. For clerks and judges alike, the challenges posed by pro se litigants can be difficult, both legally and ethically. Rut beyond the procedural and ethical issues, these services will have a profound impact on future courthouse design. Courthouses traditionally have been designed to serve attorneys

and professionals who know court procedures and are familiar with the ins and outs of filing cases, briefs, and other pleadings. Pro se litigants come to court with lots of que,stions from the simplest to the coniplex. Courts are beginning to recognize the need to provide these citizens with more detailed information and assistance to ensure that these matters are handled with efficiency and fairness. Courts in Arizona, Maryland, Minnesota, Connecticut, Washington, Utah, California, and Colorado have developed and implemented in recent years pro se services or resource centers where people can ask questions, find information, complete forms, and research the law. Usually located in the courthouse, these centers arc changing the way that citizens interact with the judicial system. New spaces need to be defined that are a hybrid between a law library, a clerk's office, and classroom where the court may provide group instructions about how to file a case and how individuals

can represent themselves before the court. Centers may provide pr.ivate areas for mediation o r where pro se litigants may meet with a lawyer lo ask specific questions, have access to computer terminals to research case files and legal references, and use work tables where court staff may assist them with forms and instructional materials. Pro se litigants may even need space for audiovisual equipment to view videotaped instructional tapes or other materials. The future will see a greater emphasis on public or customer service and more and more court services focused on the community. This coupled with the ability to decentralize and extend services into the community will mean a redefinition of the interface between the courts and the citizenry.

xv

UNITED STATESCOURTHOUSES

ClTATlON
The Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse
Composed of a ten-story tower and low pavilion, the new Alfred A. Arraj District Courthouse will provide much-needed courtroom and office space for the U.S. District Courts. The expansion site is adjacent to the Byron Rogers U.S. Courthouse located in the downtown Denver federal district. Fifteen new courtrooms and court support space, including shortterm detention and U.S. Marshal Service offices, will be added to serve the courts immediate needs. The courthouse and plaza respect both the architectural heritage of Denver and the Federal District in a modern and dignified expression. The iconic two-story pavilion recalls the historically American courthouse-in-the-square. Behind its open peristyle colonnade is the main entrance to the courthouse and a stone-clad rotunda rising to the roof and a ring of clerestory glazing. Visitors and staff will pass through secure portals with integrated screening devices for access to the tower or directly into the pavilions jury assembly and second-floor special proceedings courtroom. The tower expresses court functions and circulation in three discreet vertical planes. The glazed southeast-facing plane houses public circulation with dramatic views of the city and provides daylight into the back of the adjacent courtrooms. The center plane and body of the tower expresses the courtrooms with two suites per floor served by a central secure core and windowed jury deliberation rooms located on the exterior. The judges chambers comprise the northwest plane, which features large deep-set windows. The courthouse is a showcase project for GSAs Green Building courthouse program. It uses proven technologies for environmentally sensitive design, construction, and operation. The plaza, tower, and pavilion are oriented to take advantage of available sunlight and to allow for future expansion. Abundant daylight enters the offices, public space, and courtrooms through large windows. Indoor air quality, comfort, and flexibility are enhanced through an underfloor displacement ventilation and access floor system. In addition, lobby transition zones and evaporative cooling combine to help reduce mechanical loads. Building finishes feature durable, natural, and renewable materials, including domestic granite and brick, American maple millwork, and cork flooring throughout the courtrooms. One of the most demonstrable and noticeably green features is a building-integrated photovoltaic array of horizontal glass panels on the top of the buildings tower. The buildings combined green features reduce project energy use by 40 percent compared with conventional courthouse-building technologies. Among the first to meet the new federal courthouse security standards, the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse balances both security and openness through its progressively tiered defense zones that begin at the street edge and

Denver, CO
continue to the secure court spaces. From the first approach at the plaza-integrated street-edge planters to the built-in screening devices, this courthouse celebrates and protects the democratic process.

JURY COMMENT
The jury appreciated the intelligence and refined understatement of this project, noting the clarity of the court floor plans and the straightforward handling of the main program elements. The use of a smaller adjoining volume as an entrance and gathering point is a now familiar design strategy in a number of projects, but it is especially well done here. The small plaza area and entrance volume create a dignified entry sequence that begins to carry through tiered defense zones that are low key and unobtrusive. Issues of security and openness are nicely reconciled with each other. The jury was also impressed by the great attention given to green courthouse design issues, knowing that the project was the focus of a special study of sustainability by the U.S. General Services Administration. The design decisions for sustainability that are noted in the project description represent significant innovation. The project is a convincing demonstration of how aspects of building performance can be greatly enhanced without sacrificing the quality of interior space or the permanence required for a major courts facility.

Index o f Architects
Albert Kahn Associates, Inc.: 7 9 Anderson Mason Dale Architects: 5, 8 7 Architectural Partnership, The: 8 3 ASAI Architecture: 99, 129, 1 6 5 A+S Architects 8 Planners, P.A.: 201 Ayres Associates: 21 9 Barganier Davis Sims Architects: 45 HLM Design: 21, 27, 49, 53, 147, 1 4 9 Blythe Design Graeber, Simmons, Et Cowan, Inc.: 167 Gruen Associates: 39, 6 3 Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer Associates: 17 Hayes, Seay, Mattern 8 Mattern, lnc.: 213, 221

HDR Architecture, Inc.: 59, 133, 157, 167, 215

Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum (HOK): 5, 41, 43, 87, 105, 119, 123, 125, 153, 155, 161, 177, 189

+ Co.:

133 J.A. Ammon

+ Associates, Inc.:

191

BOORA Architects, Inc.: 31 James D. Matteson, Architects: 1 2 7 Canizaro Cawthorn Davis: 5 7 Jeter, Cook 8 Jepson Architects, Inc.: 171 C.A.P.E. P.C.: 61 John Desmond 8 Associates: 7 3 CarlanKillam Consulting Group: 21 5 Kallmann McKinnell 8 Wood: 9, 111 Carter Design Associates: 167 Kaplin McLaughlin Diaz: 7, 19, 75, 127, 199 Casazza Peets 8 Hancock: 7 Karlsberger Architecture, Inc.: 9 Chrisman, Miller, Woodford, Inc.: 55 Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates: 15, 31 CMW, Inc.: 1 6 9 Leers Weinzapfel Associates: 25, 53, 117 Daniel, Mann, Johnson Et Mendenhall (DMJM): 91, 189 Leo A. Daly Architects: 17

DLR Group: 75, 8 9

Leonard Parker Associates, The: 35, 83, 183 Ellerbe BecketlAbend Singleton: 11

L. Robert Kimball Et Associates: 93, 181

FJ Clark Incorporated: . 131, 143 McCool Carlson Green: 137 FMSM Design Group, Inc., The: 6 7 MHTN Architects, Inc.: 161 Ford Farewell Mills 8 Gatsch, Architects: 203 Moore Ruble Yudell Architects 8 Planners: 6 3 FreemanWhite Inc.: 95 Morton Verges Architects: 7 3 Goff-DAntonio Associates: 101 Moseley Harris 8 McClintock: 135, 1 9 5 Goody, Clancy 8 Associates: 21 MS Consultants, Inc.: 1 8 5 GRAD Associates, P.A.: 33, 197 Mudano Associate Architects: 153

222

.
Mutchler Bartram Architects, P.C.: 3 5 Nacht H Lewis Architects: 49 SWBR Architects: 1 7 5 NBBJ: 101 Sykes O'Connor Salrrno Hazeveh: 181 Pei Cobb Freed/Gruzen Samton: 207 TAF Group, The: 1 0 5 Perkins Eastman Architects: 141 Tower Pinkster Titus Associates: 1 2 3 Phillips Swager Associates: 107 TRA Architects: 1 2 5 PGAL: 69, 121 Treanor Architects, P.A.: 9 7 Post Associates Architects: 1 8 7 University of Oklahoma, College of Architecture: 83 Redstone Architects, Inc.: 1 8 7 Wank Adams Slavin Associates: 65 Ricci Associates: 171, 1 7 5 Wbgs Architects: 1 9 9 Rink Reynolds Diamond Fisher: 89 Wheeler, Wimer, Blackman 8 Assoc.: 1 5 7 R.M. Kliment 8 Frances Halsband: 57, 65 Wold Architects and Engineers: 159, 2 0 9 Sherman Carter Barnhart Architects: 113 Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Partnership: 3 9 Simmons Architects: 1 5 Spillis Candela 8 Partners, Inc.: 51, 55, 61, 79, 91, 103, 163, 191, 201

223

ICRN: 0-89656-212-3