International Journal of Applied Engineering Research

ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 9, Number 19 (2014) pp. 5709-5720

Research India Publications
http://www.ripublication.com

Diagramming Federal Courtroom Floors: Identifying

Functional Typologies
Dr Jawdat Goussous and Dr Saleem M Dahabreh
Department of Architecture/University of Jordan
j_goussous@ju.edu.jo
Department of Architecture/University of Jordan
Saleem.dahabreh@ju.edu.jo

Abstract
In the case of many institutional buildings, such as courthouses, program and
functional requirements present fixed precepts and unwritten demands that
greatly affect the spatial layout of the building and ultimately its form. Thus,
one way of studying courthouses is to identify the underlying functional
structures in courtroom floors that would affect the form and layout of the
courthouse building. It is the purpose of this paper to identify these functional
structures that underlie the design of many contemporary courthouses, and
their spatial implications, in order to discover commonalities between them
and establish them as functional and formal prototypes. Through archival and
architectural 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 geometric
configuration: the central and the linear. Based on the functional structures
that were found, and through applying transformation processes, a generative
typology of courtroom floors can be developed.
Key Words: Courtroom Floor Design, Constructive Diagrams, Strong
Program

Introduction
Courthouses facilities adhere to a strong and explicit functional program that
maintains certain relations and rules; courthouses exhibit very clear and distinct
patterns of circulation as well as clearly defined spaces and functional zones
associated with these circulation networks. Thus, courthouse facilities are strong
program buildings where most of what happens is specified by explicit or tacit

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 defined
functional type in specific time and space tend to have common spatial properties in
the way different functions are spatialized. Accordingly, it can be argued that
although courthouse facilities vary to a great extent in their size, complexity, form and
configuration, and architectural style, underlying the designs of many contemporary
courthouse facilities, there are well formulated functional structures with a consistent
formal configuration especially in courtroom floors that are shared among a
population of courthouses, and that there is a finite set of these functional
structures/patterns. This paper aims at uncovering these functional structures within a
sample of twenty five Federal courtroom floors and communicating them graphically
as 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 formal
typology, the paper reviewed existing literature on Federal courthouse design in order
to identify the main functional components of the courthouse and their relationships.
These functional components and their specified relationships form the constraints
within which the design of a Federal Courtroom floor takes place. The program for
the courthouse facility, and more specific the functions that are located on the
courtroom floor was then decomposed into a functional system according to a model
proposed by Mitchell (1990). Following the model of Alexander (1964), the
functional requirements as dictated by the guidelines and a spatial configuration of
courtroom floors functions were presented graphically as constructive diagrams.
The aim of the graphical representation is to create an explicit visual
representation(Broadbent, 1988) that enables the understanding and analysis of
courtroom floors both for analysis and design generation purposes.
The next step in the research was the analysis of case studies. The case studies
selected 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 each
courthouse and building drawings where available. The research selected the case
studies according to the availability of their architectural drawings. Furthermore, these
courthouses 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-three
courthouses, besides two other courthouses i.e. Omaha and Corpus Christi, containing
courtrooms were abstracted and analyzed according to the diagram established
previously in order to discover whether they have underlying common functional
structures that affect their form and configuration.
The results showed that courtroom floors within the selected sample had common
underlying functional structure/s that have a reoccurring geometric configuration
regarding the location and accessibility of the main public spaces and courtrooms in
the courtroom floor. The two geometric configurations are the central and the linear.
These two functional structures could be regarded as prototypes from which several
types and subtypes can be derived. Furthermore, these two configurations were traced

Diagramming Federal Courtroom Floors: Identifying Functional Typologies

5711

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

Understanding Federal Courthouse functions

The design of Federal Courthouse buildings is strongly prescribed by programmatic
requirements and design guidelines; specific spaces are developed to accommodate
specific functions which affect not only their internal arrangement but also their
adjacencies and links to other spaces. Courthouses are organized into five discrete
zones 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 and
waiting areas, snack bars, etc. The private zone includes all the functions that have a
restricted access and are used by particular courthouse users such as judges, jurors,
and employees. The secure zone is provided for the movement and holding of
defendants in custody; it includes horizontal and vertical secure circulation systems as
well as holding areas. The interface zone is the most important zone of the courthouse
where the space where the public, private, and secure zones interact, it includes the
courtroom and its associated functions. The service zone includes all the spaces that
serve 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 California
Task Force on Court Facilities, 1999, U.S. Courts Design Guide, 2007): public
circulation system, which is an unrestricted circulation system dedicated to the
general public. Restricted/private circulation system accessing the restricted zone and
dedicated to judicial system professionals such as judges, probation officers, court
staff, and attorneys. The secure/defendants-in-custody system that includes a secure
vertical and horizontal circulation system that connects the vehicular sally port, the
central holding area, attorney interview rooms, and the holding areas adjacent to the
courtrooms.
Within these zones, functions are divided into two types: functions directly
associated with the courtroom are labeled low volume functions, while
administrative and social services are labeled high volume functions (Green, 1994,
Hardenbergh ET. al., 1998, Phillips&Griebel,2003). Both Hardenbergh (1999) and
Phillips and Griebel(2003) encourage the separation of high volume functions from
low volume functions. High volume functions should be located on the entry floor or
lower floors to be as accessible as possible to the public. Low volume functions
should be located on higher floors to enhance security. Dahabreh (2006, 2014) argued
that these low volume functions that are called courtroom floor set have a common
underlying spatial pattern that can be presented as a functional structure for courtroom
floors.Table one shows the allocation and relationship of these functions to the
courtroom. Table two shows the grouping of these functions into functional zones.

5712

Dr Jawdat Goussous and Dr Saleem M Dahabreh

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

Judges chamber

Adjacency &
Accessibility
Circulation
Clustered in a floor
Public,
in groups of 2,4,6,8 restricted &
secure
Close to courtroom Restricted
via
circulation
corridor/elevator

Reception/secretary
Work area
Storage/copy/workroom
Toilets
Library/conference
Jury assembly
Near the entrance of
the courthouse
Jury deliberation
Near the courtroom
Cloak/toilets for jury
See figure
Courtroom Holding area/s Close to courtroom
Guard/s
Secure staircase/elevator
Attorney/witness
Directly adjacent to
conference
courtroom
Attorney/client
Directly adjacent to
conference
courtroom
Witness/victim waiting
Court reporters
Bailiff workstation
Research attorney
offices/workstations
Robbing/conference room Directly adjacent to
courtroom
Public waiting areas
Public restrooms
Services

Location
Lower/Upper floors
according to
proceeding & traffic
Decentralized on
courtroom
floor/centralized on
separate floors

Public &
restricted
Restricted

First/Lower floors

Secure
Secure
Secure
From
courtroom
vestibule
From
courtroom
vestibule
Restricted
Restricted
Restricted

Courtroom floors
Courtroom floors
Courtroom floors
Courtroom floors

Restricted

Courtroom floor

Public
Public

Courtroom floor
Courtroom floor

Courtroom floors

Courtroom floors

Courtroom floors
Courtroom floor

Diagramming Federal Courtroom Floors: Identifying Functional Typologies

5713

Table 1 functional activities grouped as zones

Functional Activity

Functional Set

Zone

Services

Service Zone

Judges Suite

Private Zone

Services

Judges chamber
Reception/secretary
Work area
Storage/copy/workroom
Toilet
Library/conference
Court Support
Attorney/witness conference
Attorney/client conference
Witness/victim waiting
Court reporters
Bailiff workstation
Research attorney offices/workstations
Robbing/conference room
Fax/record storage/copying
Jury Deliberation
Jury assembly
Jury deliberation
Cloak/toilets
Defendants-in-custody
Holding Area

Secure Zone

Courtroom

Interface Zone

Public Area

Public Zone

Courtroom Holding area/s

Guard/s
Secure staircase/elevator

Courtroom

Public waiting areas

Public restrooms

5714

Dr Jawdat Goussous and Dr Saleem M Dahabreh

Analyzing Courtroom floor sets

Dahabreh (2014) identified the functional genotype that realizes all the spatial
relationships between courtroom floor functions (fig 1). However, the functional
genotype captures topological relationships that can take any geometric form (Hillier
& Hanson, 1984). As designers rarely represent their buildings as graphs, but often
work in diagrams, it is of value to express as much of the program graphically and
diagrammatically as possible as diagrams have direct implications on physical
building form (White, 1972). The diagram represents the genotype as a formal
arrangement of spatial units with dimensions and areas. Thus, the diagram is closer to
an actual architectural plan and expresses programmatic requirements in a way which
is more directly relevant to a designer (Cherry, 1999). Here the term functional
diagram 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 similar
to what Alexander (1964) has described as constructive diagrams. Alexander
introduced the idea of constructive diagrams as means for representation. A
constructive diagram is a combination of a form diagram i.e. a diagram that
summarizes aspects of the physical structure by representing one of the constituent
patterns of its constraints and a requirement diagram that summaries a set of
functional properties or constraints However, most of the functional diagrams
discussed here are not starting points for the design of new buildings, but rather
abstractions from already existing designs. Thus, functional diagrams, as used here,
serve an analytic not a synthetic purpose. Figure two represents the functional
diagram of the courtroom floor set.

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

Dahabreh, 2014)

Diagramming Federal Courtroom Floors: Identifying Functional Typologies

5715

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 the
twenty five cases selected were diagrammatically represented, as shown in Figure 3.
Based on these diagrammatic plans, the functional diagrams representing courtroom
sets were singled out, as shown in Figure 4.

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

(Source: Dahabreh, 2006)

5716

Dr Jawdat Goussous and Dr Saleem M Dahabreh

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 strongly
determined by functional requirements, there is some degree of variation in both the
exact pattern of connections and the exact pattern of geometrical relationships that
accommodate 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 into
recursive patterns to produce the overall plan. Figure 5 helps to reveal some
interesting 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 building
floors, with the judges chambers on a different floor than the courtroom itself. In 9
cases four courtroom sets were arranged in pairs on the two sides of a central atrium
space. In the other cases courtroom sets were arranged in some form of simple
succession.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 the
courtrooms and associated spaces, and a back zone with judges 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 plan
assumes a circular form.

Diagramming Federal Courtroom Floors: Identifying Functional Typologies

5717

In order to make sense of the alternative patterns of recursive arrangement that are
suggested by the foregoing heuristic investigation, two different models of court-set
configurations are proposed, the concentric and the linear. The essential difference
between these arises from the location of the public, whether it is centralized between
the 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 side
of 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 with
courtrooms arranged on two sides of the central space. The restricted or private zone
lies on the periphery. Public circulation is concentrated in the center of a rectangular
form. Private or restricted circulation circumscribes the courtrooms and connects the
various restricted parts: judges chambers, jury deliberation rooms, court support, and
the courtroom along with the restricted vertical circulation. A generic diagram for this
type, drawn according to the 9 court buildings, is presented in Figure 7.

5718

Dr Jawdat Goussous and Dr Saleem M Dahabreh

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 zone
on 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 side
of 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, although
seemingly different, have underlying common functional structures i.e. functional
prototypes/genotypes and that there is a finite set of these functional genotypes within
the sample investigated. The 25 plans analyzed above fit into these two underlying
configurational patterns. The sample includes 9 concentric and 16 linear plans, some

Diagramming Federal Courtroom Floors: Identifying Functional Typologies

5719

of which are elementary in that only a very small number of courtrooms is found on
each floor. Thus, the two models are themselves genotypical of the court building as a
type. Once any of these functional prototypes has been established according to
needed functions and required relationships, it can be open for manipulation where
many other arrangements of its parts can be explored retaining the basic information
in its diagram; the prototype can be refined according to constraints specified by the
site, the client, or different geometric or proportional systems, etc and as the design
progresses the prototype takes specific shape, form, and style. Thus, these functional
configurations can be regarded as elementary ideas or principle types on which of
global variations can be found. These prototypes can be arranged to form a typology
that can be used for both analyzing existing courtroom floors and generating new
designs 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 diagrams
lies 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: Harvard
University 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 Islip
Courthouse by Richard Meier. PhD Dissertation. Georgia Institute of
Technology.
[5] Dahabreh, Saleem M. (2014). Establishing Connectivity Graphs as a Functional
Genotypes of Federal Courthouse Buildings. In International Journal of
Engineering Research and Applications, Volume 4:2pp 407-412
[6] Green, Allan. (1994). Courthouse Design: A handbook for Judges and Court
Administrators.
[7] Hardenbergh, Don, et. al. (1998). The Courthouse: a planning and design guide
for court facilities. 2nd edition. Williamsburg: National Center for State Courts.
[8] Hillier, B., Hanson, J., Peponis, J.. (1984). What do we mean by Building
Function. 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; New
York: Cambridge University Press.

5720

Dr Jawdat Goussous and Dr Saleem M Dahabreh

[10] Hillier, Bill. (2007). Space is the Machine: a configurational theory of

architecture. 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] mer, Akin. (2002). Case-based instruction strategies in architecture. Design
Studies volume 23, issue 4,Pages 407-431. Retrieved on January 2003
fromhttps://www.library.gatech.edu/ejournals_frame.htm
[15] Oxman, Rivka. (1990). Prior knowledge in design: a dynamic knowledge based
model for design and creativity. Design studies Vol. 11, No. 1pp 17-28
[16] Phillips, Todd S., Criebel. (2003). Justice Facilities. New Jersey: John Wiley
and 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.