JFR justice facilities13 review

AIA JFRjustice facilities13 review

The American Institute of Architects Academy of Architecture for Justice Washington, D.C. Copyright 2013 The American Institute of Architects All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America

The project information in this book has been provided by the architecture firms represented in the book. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) has no reason to believe the information is not accurate, but the AIA does not warrant, and assumes no liability for, the accuracy or completeness of the information. It is the responsibility of users to verify the information with the appropriate architecture firm or other source.

The American Institute of Architects 1735 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20006

2013 Academy of Architecture for Justice Advisory Group Linda Bernauer, AIA Catherine Chan, AIA, chair Lorenzo M. Lopez, AIA Elizabeth Minnis, AIA, past chair Amy Ann Phillips, AIA

AIA Staff Terri Stewart, CAE, managing director, Design and Practice Operations Douglas Paul, managing director, Practice and Knowledge Resources Kathleen Simpson, director, Knowledge Communities Elizabeth Stepahin, manager, Honors and Awards Virginia Ebbert, manager, Architect’s Knowledge Resource

Design: designfarm Editor: Janet Rumbarger

Cover photos, top to bottom: Rankin Inlet Healing Facility, Richard E. Arnason Justice Center, Waterloo Region Courthouse iii ContentS 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 46 48 52

...... Law Enforcement Facilities Olathe, Kansas...... Criminalistics Laboratory, Johnson County Sheriff’s Index of Architects Court Facilities ...... Courthouse, Savannah, Georgia Chatham County Trial Pleas Courthouse, Columbus, Ohio...... Franklin County Common Courthouse and Federal Building, U.S. George C. Young Orlando, Florida...... Arizona...... John M. Roll U.S. Courthouse, Yuma, Florida...... Lake County Judicial Center Expansion, Tavares, ...... Stanley J. Roszkowski U.S. Courthouse, Rockford, Illinois Courthouse, Superior Court of California, County of Kings, Hanford Hanford, California...... California...... City, City Courthouse, Yuba Yuba ...... U.S. Courthouse, Los Angeles, California (Design Competition) Ontario. Police Service 14 Division, Toronto, Toronto 2 6 iv vii 10 14 20 22

......

Correctional and Detention Facilities Federal Penitentiary System, New Model Prison for Mexico’s Canada [correctional]...... Pittsburg, California [court]...... Richard E. Arnason Justice Center, Detention Facility, San Diego County Women’s Santee, California [detention]...... Mexico...... Mexico City, Citations Nunavut Territory, Rankin Inlet Healing Facility, Jury Comments Jury Members [court]...... Ontario Region Courthouse, Kitchener, Waterloo Phase 2 Expansion, County Detention Center, Wake Carolina...... North County, Wake contentS Duane B. Delaney Jury members D.C. Superior Court Washington, DC

Duane Delaney is the clerk of the court for the District of Columbia Superior Court. He has been employed by the D.C. Superior

Jury Chair Court for over 30 years and has served as the appointed clerk of Jay Farbstein, PhD, FAIA the court for 17 years. As clerk of Jay Farbstein & Associates, Inc. Pacific Palisades, CA the court he is responsible for all operations in the Superior Court, a general jurisdiction urban Mr. Farbstein is president of his court with more than 800 employees and 125 judges. Before firm and has more than 30 years of his appointment as clerk of the court, Mr. Delaney served the professional experience in justice court in numerous capacities, including deputy clerk of the facility planning, programming, and court, director of the Civil Division, acting director of the Social post-occupancy evaluation, with an Services Division (Probation Department), special assistant to emphasis on courts and corrections. the clerk of the court, probation officer, and pretrial services

He has led projects for clients including the National Institute officer. of Corrections and many federal, state, and local jurisdictions Mr. Delaney received his JD degree from Georgetown University nationwide. He was lead author of Correctional Facility Planning Law Center in 1989 and an MS degree in judicial administration and Design (Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1986) and has been invited from American University in 1979. He graduated magna cum to lecture about his work in Japan, Canada, Britain, France, and laude in 1977 with a BA degree from Howard University, where Germany. he was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa. He is a member of the

Mr. Farbstein cochairs the AIA Academy of Architecture for Justice’s D.C. Bar and the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court. He currently research program. For the AAJ, he led a study of the application serves on the board of directors of the National Association of neuroscience to the evaluation of correctional environments and for Court Management (NACM) and is a board member of recently served on a joint expert panel with Infocomm International the Justice Management Institute. He previously served as to develop standards for audiovisual infrastructure in the courts. NACM’s representative on the National Center for State Courts He also served as chair of the Environmental Design Research Research Advisory Committee and has chaired NACM’s Award Association and received its lifetime career achievement award in of Merit Subcommittee since 2007. 2008. He earned an MArch from Harvard University and a PhD from

the University of London in environmental studies. jfr 13 iv

Thomas G. Donaghy, AIA, LEED® AP Mr. Faust received a BS degree from Virginia Tech and an MPA KGD from George Mason University (GMU). He has served on the GMU Arlington, VA Administration of Justice Advisory Board, the Northern Virginia Thomas Donaghy is the architec­ Community College Criminal Justice Curriculum Advisory Board, ture director for KGD Architecture. and the National Institute of Corrections Large Jail Network. He is His diverse experience ranges also a past president of the American Jail Association. from master planning large mixed- use urban projects to designing commercial, hospitality, education, Maynard Feist, AIA and justice facilities. All of his Lionakis projects­ emphasize their contextual Sacramento, CA environ­ ment­ and the connections between human experience and Maynard Feist is the lead principal of sustainable practices. His design of the Maryland District Court of Lionakis’s criminal justice team. He Rockville received a 2012 citation from the Academy of Architecture joined the firm in 1988 when its only for Justice. office was in Sacramento; the firm Mr. Donaghy received his BArch from the University of Arizona. He now has offices throughout California is a member of the Education Committee of the Virginia chapter of and Hawaii. NAIOP, a commercial real estate development association, and he He has led the design, planning, presented his work at the AIA/AAJ national conference in 2011. and construction of adult and juvenile detention facilities in 19 California counties, and he helped the first counties in the state go through the SB81 funding process. When California implemented Thomas N. Faust its requirements to create more positive and rehabilitative D.C. Department of Corrections environments, Mr. Feist was at the forefront of this transformation in Washington, DC correctional facility planning and design. Thomas Faust is a public safety professional with more than 34 With more than 31 years of experience, he is a recognized leader years of experience in the field of in the correctional market and is well versed in the latest legislation criminal justice. He currently serves that affects correctional clients. Mr. Feist has been involved with as director of the D.C. Department of the State Fire Marshal’s I-3 Occupancy Codes Task Force and Corrections, one of the largest local participated in the refinement of the Title 24 Minimum Standards detention systems in the nation. for Juvenile Facilities with the Board of Community Corrections for reporting recommendations that will be included in the 2013

From 1977 to 1990, Mr. Faust held several positions with the California Building Code. v

Arlington County (Virginia) Sheriff’s Office, including deputy sheriff, Ju r director of administration, and chief deputy. In 1990 he was elected Mr. Feist, originally from North Dakota, takes a pragmatic and y membe rs to his first four-year term as sheriff of Arlington County, a position he sensible approach to problem solving. His expertise and practical held for three consecutive terms. He later served as chief operating knowledge of construction compliment his deep understanding of officer of the National Sheriffs’ Association and, from 2007 to 2009, correctional facility architecture. was vice president of Aramark Correctional Services, where he developed corporate marketing, outreach, and quality assurance strategies. jfr13 vi Jur representing 1,365policeagenciesworldwide. more than2,700policeexecutives anddesignprofessionals, “Planning, Design,andConstructionofPoliceFacilities,”to Chiefs of Police, Mr. McClaren has presented the IACP program, AssociationofRecruited 28yearsagobytheInternational LAPD’s historicacademyinElysianPark. effortsofthe andiscollaboratingonthemodernization Airports completed thepolicemasterplanforLosAngelesWorld zero buildingandachieveLEED tobea net- Americanpoliceheadquarters and is the firstNorth whichfeaturesheadquarters, seismicdampeningtechnology y members continued Salt LakeCityPolice/Fire/EOC/911 Currently heisworkingonthenew and twoCanadianprovinces. the forensic sciencesin40states in servicetolawenforcement and includes completedarchitecture Hislegacyand cofounderofhisfirm. Mr. McClaren is a senior principal Phoenix, AZ McClaren, Wilson&Lawrie,Inc. James LewisMcClaren,AIA ® Platinumstatus.Herecently

vii jury comments Silver seems to be the entry for these level ® arbstein, PhD, FAIA PhD, arbstein, government, included some adult Canada. Submissions and some facilities, but, for law enforcement facilities and correctional was facility detention or correctional not a single juvenile reason, submitted. and, even Historically accurate courthouse projects—restorations important, to demonstrate to the more new construction—needed some level of innovation and excellence jury they brought that aspects of the project, to the court planning and environmental this criterion. Although some submitted met but none that were court traditional a in design elements reinterpret to claimed projects a few succeeded—and we insisted only contemporary vocabulary, in the sometimes expressed the lofty ideals that the design reflect accompanying rhetoric. The jury that high levels of performance was pleased to note in quality have become the norm energy efficiency and environmental for submissions. LEED public sector projects. public sector projects. of general disappointment was in the Thought Leadership One area to apply studies bothered properly that were Few projects category. the ones that did, while competent, did not rise and in this category, design number of Quite a or excellence. of innovation level to the identified as thought leaders, but only simultaneously were projects a few demonstrated convincingly that they were. innovative contributions to that represent for projects Finally, that post- and design, the jury recommends program strongly the aspects that occupancy evaluations be conducted to validate that firmswork—and those that may not work as well—so working evidence-based design. a more in this field can move toward F Jay 2013 Justice Facilities Review Jury Chair om the Chair The View fr

s y comment

We inferred that the mix of projects submitted most likely reflected most likely reflected submitted that the mix of projects inferred We least (at were that types facility and places conditions; economic better well funded were in the last couple of years) relatively courts Thus, we saw far more than other types represented. the U.S. federal California, from Texas, more and of projects The court projects that received citations also rose to the level of to the level of citations also rose that received The court projects Waterloo to context and locale in the excellence. The response courthousepermeated spaces, public the of shape the layout, the In the Arnason we found Justice Center project, and the materiality. and material excellence at every planning, detailing, level, from impressed were and attractiveness. We overall quality selections to And natural light into the courtrooms. with the efforts to introduce that “this looks like a facility that commented than one juror more everyone would enjoy working in.” Two correctional projects that received citations were outstandingly citations were that received projects correctional Two and reintegrative to rehabilitative innovative in their response an Inuit village in the Arctic The two projects—one programming. facility in California— correctional and the other a women’s cultural contexts. In both cases, the vastly different represented innovations, and the design teams the programmatic client drove supported that clearly environments to the occasion, proposing rose and operational goals. the programmatic and expressed The jury members agreed that we were seeking projects that seeking projects that we were The jury members agreed operational, outstanding on multiple levels—programmatic, are the perspective as well as from and aesthetic, environmental, with impressed especially were We of cost and construction. to site, context, related challenging problems innovative solutions to very pleased to have found or construction. And we were program, citations, as we could celebrate by awarding four such projects valuable offered that projects other of number substantial a as well contributions and warranted publication. Jur

Citations jfr13 10 alive. The form (usingcurvesfoundintraditionalstructures), alive. Theform of renewal and reintegration andofkeepingculturalvalues All aspectsofthedesigncontributetooverarching goals ofthetransitionprocess. with guns!)aspart oftheprogram that part entailedsupervisedhunting(yes, the naturalorder and societyandculture. We were amazed correct thatbalance andreconnect theoffender withboth community andthatthetaskofjusticesystemisto that anoffender has fallenoutofbalancewithhisorher and ambitiousprogram ofhealing,tiedtotheInuitconcept aspectofthisproject,withaprogressiveevery starting conditions in a remote area. was impressed The jury with and responding innovativelytochallengingclimatic this oneexcelledinexpressing localculture architecturally More thanoneculturallyspecificproject wassubmitted,but Jury’s Statement [correctional] Rankin InletHealingFacility Nunavut T erritory, Canada to measure the impactonrecidivism andreintegration. or twoofoperationwouldbevaluable,includingafollow-up believesapost-occupancyevaluationafteryear The jury could resist the terriblyharshclimate. components thatcouldbeshippedinandassembled permafrost, thebuildinghadtoberaisedupandbuiltof the designovercomes thechallenges.Locatedon This wasalsoachallengingproject toconstruct,and appropriate. as wood),andbrightcolorswere allconsidered highly selection ofmaterials(includingnaturalsuch 3 citations as well as demystify negative community stereotypes associated as well as demystify negative community stereotypes to facilities. The curvilinear forms also respond with correctional traditional building elements such as whalebone, sod, stone, snow, and ice. The exterior is composed of wood, metal panels, and vegetation. Sitting by Arctic glazing, with colorfulinspired details and hovers over the permafrost ground the building on steel piles, engages the natural contours of the site. The facility consists of a exterior walls, and The roof, series of stepped shedlike structures. are designed to suit the harsh northernfloor soffit details climate. natural materials such as stone and wood are On the interior, including the chapel, gymnasium, and used in communal areas, light, an important in the north, Natural dayrooms. feature floods the the building especially during summer months. In addition, facility, security and building includes sophisticated integrated electronic automation systems. The facility promotes healing and rehabilitation through inmate through healing and rehabilitation The facility promotes The outdoors, and the community. the with staff, interaction curvilinear form, based on an understanding of Inuit building’s is designed to facilitate the healing process and tradition, culture tatement Architect’s Statement center for The Rankin Inlet Healing Facility is a 48-bed correctional of Hudson Bay on the shores men, located in the Canadian Arctic, population of 30,000 of Nunavut’s The majority in Nunavut Territory. has caused rapid assimilation of Western culture Inuit. The are in elevated resulting dislocations within the traditional culture, rates. The government recidivism and of Nunavut is incarceration committed to a system of community-based justice that encourages and for offenders responsibility communities to take greater comprises supervision, direct under operating The facility, victims. two housing units: a 32-bed medium security unit and a 16-bed minimum security unit for inmates who participate in community- based programs. jfr13 4 Number ofcells:24 Type ofbeds:medium/minimumsecurity Number ofbeds:48 Capacity Completed 2012 Status ofProject General funds Funding Design-bid-build TypeProject Delivery Building cost/GSF:$928 Total constructioncosts:$29,840,900 Building costs:$29,263,900 Site developmentcosts:$577,000 Actual Construction Costs 20,340/NA/20,340 New/Renovated/Total NAA 31,540/NA/31,540 New/Renovated/Total GSF Area ofBuilding 3.64 Acres 34,500 SF Site Area New Type ofConstruction Correctional Type ofFacility Data Department ofJustice,GovernmentNunavut Owner 5 citations Credits Architect Limited Parkin Architects Ontario Toronto, Civil/Structural/Mechanical/ Electrical Engineer Accutech Engineering Inc. Photographer Gerry Photographics, Inc. Kopelow

“

ll aspects of the design contribute All aspects of the design contribute to the overarching goals of renewal to the overarching goals of renewal and reintegration... “ jfr13 2 and highwindowsinthecourtrooms. openness, anduseofnaturallightthroughout, includingskylights praisedthebuilding’s particularly closed. Thejury senseof warmth, is building canbeaccessedforpubliceventswhenthecourthouse so that the assembly is located to one side of the entry Jury The building’s layoutismarkedbyaclearprogression ofspaces. planning tothelayoutofspacesandchoicematerials. way—from inevery site it becameclearthatwasexemplary wouldenjoyworkingin,”and,onexamination, facility thateveryone This jury’s initialresponse wastoexclaimthatthis“lookslikea Jury’s Statement [court] Justice Center Richard E.Arnason Pittsburg, California quality and durability in important civicbuildings. quality anddurabilityinimportant however, feltthatitisappropriate thejury toachievethislevelof building (the budget was withheld at the request of the owner); wasaboutcost—itmayornotbeanexpensive concern the communitywillbeabletocherishforyearscome.Theonly a strong senseofdignityandciviccharacter. Thisisabuilding The highqualitymaterialsare durableand appropriate andconvey 7 citations

® “ This is a building the community will be able to cherish for years to come. “ The entry the “courthouse of the past; plaza recalls square” up to the elevated decomposed granite steps and ramps lead with native and drought-resistant The site is landscaped entry. the required A network of bioswales provides plants and trees. roof and minimizes storm A green water runoff. security standoff energy reduces over the jury and natural beauty, pavilion adds life LEED receive will The project loads, and slows stormrunoff. water Silver certification. The circulation is easy and clear for the public and efficient for is easy and clear for the public and The circulation housing seven courts, for the building is designed Currently staff. advanced courtroom feature to 10. All courtrooms expansion future traffic court, and entry lobby are The jury assembly, technology. of the facility for after-hours the rest designed to be isolated from night court the overall or community use without compromising building security. Inside, the environment evokes a sense of calm. The design was evokes a sense of calm. The Inside, the environment river foothills and surrounding adjacent rolling by the site’s inspired delta, with simple, natural materials—limestone, terrazzo, redwood and glass—selected for salvaged logs, Trespa, veneers from The artwork at ease of maintenance, and sustainability. longevity, the main entry echoes the shadows and colors of the nearby hills and mountains, casting soft, waterlike shadows into the second- story hallway. tatement Architect’s Statement full-service courthouseThe justice center is the first funded Court Facilities Standards. new Trial constructed under California’s jury entry lobby, transparent and façade limestone building’s The a sense of dignified assembly pavilion, and open galleries inspire openness. friendly and beauty natural with combined stateliness contemporary a to provide yet enduring civic goal was The client’s to a satellite suburban courthouse, edifice appropriate achieved building with traffic, family, 73,500-square-foot in a three-level, juvenile, criminal trial, and arraignment courtrooms. jfr13 8 traffic, arraignment Type ofcourts:criminal/highsecurity, juvenile, Number ofcourts:7 population:300,000–350,000 Service Capacity Completed 2010 Status ofProject State CourtFacilitiesConstructionFund Funding CM atrisk TypeProject Delivery Building cost/GSF:NA Total constructioncosts:NA Building costs:NA Site developmentcosts:NA Actual Construction Costs 56,541/NA/56,541 New/Renovated/Total NAA 73,500/NA/73,500 New/Renovated/Total GSF Area ofBuilding 4.15 Acres 180,774 SF Site Area New Type ofConstruction Court Type ofFacility Data Administrative OfficeoftheCourts Judicial CouncilofCalifornia, Owner 9 citations Credits Architect HOK San Francisco Civil Engineer BKF Engineers Engineer Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing HOK Structural Engineer Louie International Landscape Architect HOK Lighting Designer Horton Lees Brogden Lighting Acoustics/Audiovisual Smith, Fause McDonald Inc. Court Planner/Interior Design/Rendering HOK Blast Consultant Hinman Consulting Engineers Inc. Energy Consultant Architectural Energy Corporation Signage and Graphics Square Peg Design Contractor Sundt Construction Inc. Photographer Photography David Wakely jfr13 10 [detention] Detention Facility San DiegoCountyWomen’s that this encourages positive communications). The jury also liked alsoliked that thisencouragespositivecommunications).Thejury provide adegree ofprivacyconsistentwithsecurity(research shows Among thefeaturesappreciated thejury arethatalso theopendorms not respond totheprogram). provides somehard, more traditionalhousingunitsforthosewhodo behavior(and setting upclearbehavioralexpectationsfor“normal” environment takes theconceptofanormalized tonextlevel, intosociety.them forre-entry Through allthesegestures, theproject in behaviorthrough rewards geared toward womenandwillprepare campus–type atmosphere withprograms thatwillpromote changes stress andencouragerehabilitation. Thisjailprovides acollege for positive interaction and communication can reduce opportunities an environment thatprovides naturallight,viewsofnature, and programs. Agrowing bodyofresearch thenotionthat supports based programsthose butalsoevidence-baseddesigntosupport This project inincorporatingnotonlyevidence- isexemplary Jury’s Statement Santee, California contribute thenextincrement toevidence-baseddesign. occupied, thisproject alsowarrantsapost-occupancyevaluationto nottheleadingedge.Onceconstructedand should bethenorm, they havenotbeentakenupgenerally. sense,this project Inacertain (e.g., inCalifornia’s ContraCostaCountyjailsandsomeothers), (perhaps withoutasmuchresearch tosubstantiatethem)for25years remarked, however, thatmanyoftheseideashavebeenavailable leadership andwarrantsrecognition inthatcategory. Thejury This project wasone of the fewthat clearly incorporates thought these placeswhilenotblockingviewsneededforsupervision. and staff activities;landscapingiscarefully designedtoprovide the campus,whichprovides numerous outdoorspacesforinmate 11 citations Gold certification. The SDCWDF will ® be constructed in two phases in order to maintain operation of the to maintain operation be constructed in two phases in order existing facility; the first phase of the complex is being built on the adjacent, connected site. support opportunities and the safety and security of rehabilitative Administration/ the and inmates. The public face of the facility, staff scaled, richly landscaped a residentially building, features Visitation to the community context of a good neighbor. campus responsive known to be predictable The design is based on what are to their people have psychological and physiological responses support of a culture The site and building architecture environment. behavior; positive change and respectful expectations: appropriate interaction with other respectful work and responsibility; hard through and, ultimately, programs; from personal growth inmates and staff; productive a as community the into back transition successful that seamlessly supports environment citizen. A safe and secure with inmates. Studies interaction effective will, in turn,staff reinforce men; multicustody living from show that women socialize differently that integrally exterior courtyards around clustered are environments intimate or group connect the interior to the exterior spaces to create located in the heart of the buildings are interaction. The program which will buzz with activity during the day and “campus core,” evenings. is targeting LEED The project Over a 10-year planning process, San Diego County developed Over a 10-year planning process, and custody of women that to the care an innovative approach model has the potential to establish a national adult incarceration based on normative operations and facility design. The San Diego (SDCWDF) comprises 1,216 Detention Facility County Women’s college; its campus modeled on a community beds on a 45-acre proactively to intended is culture management program-intensive transformative distinctly This inspired philosophy recidivism. reduce principles of choice, change, and the design team to explore that would accountability in the development of an environment Architect’s Statement jfr13 12 Number ofcells:544 Type ofbeds:detention Number ofbeds:1,216 Capacity Estimated completion2015 Under construction Status ofProject Public bondissue,generalfunds Funding Design-build; best-valueGMP TypeProject Delivery Building cost/GSF:$355 Total constructioncosts:$190,000,000 Building costs:$164,000,000 Site developmentcosts:$26,000,000 Estimated Construction Costs 292,274/NA/292,274 New/Renovated/Total NAA 461,620/NA/461,620 New/Renovated/Total GSF Area ofBuilding 45 Acres 1,960,200 SF Site Area New Type ofConstruction Detention Type ofFacility Data County ofSanDiego Owner “ stressandencouragerehabilitation. interactionandcommunicationcanreduce ofnature,andopportunitiesforpositive ... anenvironmentthatprovidesnaturallight,views

“ 13 citationscitations Credits of Record Architect/Architect KMD Architects San Francisco Associate Architect HMC Architects San Diego Construction Manager Construction Management Vanir Program Manager Carter Goble Lee Design-Build Contractor Balfour Beatty Construction Structural Engineer DCI Engineers Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing Engineer Glumac Civil Engineer Bureau Veritas Geotechnical Engineer Leighton Group Landscape Architect LandLAB Sustainability Specialist HMC Architects Security Electronics HK Electrical Engineers Acoustical Consultant Newson Brown Acoustics Code Consultant RJA Mechanical and Plumbing California Comfort Systems Electrical Helix Electric Food Service and Laundry Smith & Company R.W. Detention Equipment Southern Folger Graphics HMC Architects/KMD Architects (renderings) jfr13 14 [court] W cues forvisitors. layers ofmeaningaboutasenseplace,aswellway-finding design donotactuallydeliver, butthisproject does—anditadds in the atrium and walkways. Too often, references to “contextual” and sweeps through its stone bed, and then echoed this pattern The presentationoftheriver’s showedtheimagery dramaticturns unique features oftheregion intothedesignofitspublicspaces. effectivedistinguished it mostclearly was itsvery incorporation of appreciatedThe jury manyaspectsofthisproject, butwhat Jury’s Statement Kitchener, Ontario aterloo RegionCou between incompatiblevisitors. was arrayedinsmallgroups withscreens toprovide separation design ofseatingoutsidethefamilycourtrooms; regular geometry. likedwasthe particularly Onedetailthejury where, forexample,thesamestonewas used butinamore and structured functionalareas likeofficesandcourtrooms, exterior andpubliccirculation spacestomoredefined, formal, likedthewaydesigntransitionedfromThe jury themore fluid thouse 15 citations Silver and ® includes a number of energy-saving, resource-saving, and internal includes a number of energy-saving, resource-saving, features. environment Architect’s Statement Courthouse Region design is a competition-winning The Waterloo Ontario Courts Superior and regional that consolidates three two It houses 30 courtrooms, facility. facilities into one integrated The settlement rooms. and six conference intake courtrooms, two blocks, with the taller block housing the building is organized in courts court and the lower block housing support spaces. These internally connected by a three-story sky-lit atrium. blocks are of of inspiration for the design The local Grand River is a source and atrium, the of composition curvilinear the landscape, site the also theme organic This palette. material striated horizontally the the character of the courthouse for the desire to evolve addresses of power and expression one dominated by an architectural from open, accessible institution. stability to that of a more its scale to the immediate context through The building responds around the design of the public realm and mass and through the building. While the courtslab is in keeping with the scale of podium the taller buildings to the north and west, the lower-level formsmassing that of edges the street-related a create elements physical security barriers are a new public plaza. The required the surrounds that landscape linear extensive an in concealed isolated parks in a new upgraded building, linking two previously public realm. informal, an from The interior design and character transition and restrained rectilinear to a more public realm naturally inspired the rule of law and the institution of representing inner realm, justice. The complex is on target to achieve LEED jfr13 16 domestic, juvenile,hearings Type ofcourts:criminal/highsecurity, civil, Number ofcourts:30 population:553,000 Service Capacity Completed 2013 Status ofProject Private financingleaseback Funding P3, DBFM TypeProject Delivery Building cost/GSF:$500 Total constructioncosts:$232,000,000 Building costs:$225,000,000 Site developmentcosts:$7,000,000 Estimated Construction Costs 240,299/NA/240,299 New/Renovated/Total NAA 446,428/NA/446,428 New/Renovated/Total GSF Area ofBuilding 3.37 Acres 146,741 SF Site Area New Type ofConstruction Court Type ofFacility Data Province ofOntario Owner 17 citations

Credits Architect Architects and Engineers NORR Limited Ontario Toronto, Structural Engineer NORR Limited Mechanical Engineer Hidi Rae & Associates Electrical Engineer Inc. Mulvey & Banani International Landscaping Dillion Consulting Courthouse Consultant Aecom LEED Consultant Enermodal Signage Consultant Forge Media Code Consultant LRI Audiovisual Consultant Sight N Sound Design Acoustic Consultant Swallow Acoustics Photographer Shai Gil

“

is a source of inspiration for the design The local Grand River is a source of inspiration for the design of the site landscape... of the site landscape... “

Correctional and detention facilities jfr13 20 Sebring, Florida addition, theproject provides amaptoadvancethesystemfrom CorrectionsInternational andPrisonsAssociationConference. In exampleofreformashighlightedatthe2012 to aninternational levels forminimalrequirements ofconfinementandoperations Systemfromhas movedtheMexicanPenitentiary substandard applied, andmanyreceived 100%compliance ratings.Theproject has accredited alltheexistingfacilitiesin which thisprogram was Association’s standards international foraccreditation. TheACA program enabledthefacilitiestomeet AmericanCorrectional security guidelines,andoperationalpractices developed forthis requirements ofdirect supervisionoperations.Thespacestandards, but alsofortherenovation andreuse ofexistingfacilitiestomeetthe because itprovides asolutionnotonlyforthe designofnewfacilities The newmodelprisonforMexico’s Systemisunique Penitentiary Architect’s Statement New ModelPrisonfoexico’FedealPenitentia Mexico City, Mexico next administration. model program withanadditional50,000bedsplannedduringthe progressive systems in theworldandcontinuing penitentiary of Interior)hassetevenhighergoalsforcreating oneofthemost change. ThenewSecretaría(SEGOB,Ministry deGobernación Security) hasestablishedMexicoastheexampleforpositive Secretaríaformer deSeguridadPública(SSP, Secretariat ofPublic making extensiveimprovementsoperationsbythe inpenitentiary create newlawsforconfinementinMexico. Thecommitmentto in otherLatinAmericancountries.Themodelwasusedtohelp systembutalsostateprisonsand the federalpenitentiary The modelprisonisthebasisforallfuture planningofnotonly federal inmatesfrom poorlyoperatedstatefacilities. This increased totakecontrol capacityhasallowedthecountry of approximately 4,000bedstonearly30,000withinfiveyears. y System 21 correctional and detention facilities Credits Architect CGL Companies Miami Photographer Secretaría de Seguridad Pública/Secretaría de Gobernación/CGL Companies Owner Mexico Federal Secretary of Public Security Data of Facility Type Detention of Construction Type renovation addition, New, Site Area 130,283,604 SF Acres 2990.9 Area of Building GSF New/Renovated/Total 1,133,848/2,267,696/3,401,544 NAA New/Renovated/Total NA/NA/NA Construction Costs Estimated Site development costs: NA Building costs: NA construction costs: NA Total Building cost/GSF: NA Project Delivery Type Multiple delivery method Funding General funds, federal government Status of Project Under construction 2013 Capacity Number of beds: 6,420 of beds: supmaximum/minimum security Type Number of cells: 3,274 jfr13 22 property storage, and transfer. The facility houses 672 new inmate open intakeprogram includesidentification,magistrates,inmate food service,laundry, andwarehouse. Thenewbookingand of Identification,medicalclinicandinfirmary, academicservices, services includebookingandopenintake,City/CountyBureau located inthree separatefacilities.Some ofthoseconsolidated consolidates detentionservices/activitiesthatpreviously were and control. Thenew420,521-square-foot detentionfacility Enforcement, andconsolidationofservices forefficiency growth, integrationofImmigrationandCustoms spaceshortages, 1B (housingonly)toaddress thecounty’s continuedpopulation year. Thephase2expansionisanadditiontotheexisting Wake Countyisgrowing atarateofover30,000newresidents per Architect’s Statement W Wake County, Carolina North ake CountyDetentionCenter,Phase2Exp to dayandthrough periodsofnaturaldisasters. maintainable, functional, durable, sustainable, and operational day for new employees. The end result is a facility that is physically staff retention, efficiency, andmorale,whilestreamlining training the criminaljusticesystem.Thedesignconcentratedonenhancing justice personnel,andtheincarcerated, advancingthemissionof communicates asafeandsecure environment forthepublic, as innovative,responsible, andforward thinking.Thedesign The project hasbeenwellreceived bythecitizensofWake County remaining evenwith,orslightlyaheadof,demand forbedspaces. Atthesametime,countyismaintaininginitiativeof dorms). (56-bed beds, 224singlewetcells,and448bedsindormitories ansion 23 correctional and detention facilities continued on page 50 Credits Architect/Prime Architect of Record Little Diversified Architectural Consulting Durham, NC Associate Architect HDR Architecture Dallas and Chicago Programming Carter Goble Lee Management Services Interior Design Little Diversified Architectural Consulting Code Consultant Rolf Jensen + Associates Inc. Civil/Landscape Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. Owner North Carolina County of Wake, Data of Facility Type Detention, law enforcement of Construction Type renovation New, Site Area 861,181 SF Acres 19.77 Area of Building GSF New/Renovated/Total 414,599/5,922/420,521 NAA New/Renovated/Total 273,376/4,652/278,028 Construction Costs Actual Site development costs: $4,012,751 Building costs: $124,232,284 construction costs: $128,245,035 Total Building cost/GSF: $295.42 Project Delivery Type Construction management Funding General funds Status of Project Completed 2012 Capacity Number of beds: 672 Number of cells: 224 Service population: 952,000 Staff population: 62 (sworn, 27; nonsworn, 35) Forensics lab: 28,904 SF

Court facilities jfr13 26 Chatham CountyTrialCour Savannah, Georgia structures. the city plan and the existing scale and massing of the surrounding deploy the large building program on the site while respecting both that alignsdirectly withYork to Lane.Thisallowsthecourthouse distinctive volumes,eachwithfourlevels,around acentralatrium space impliedbyYork intotwo Lanetoorganizethecourthouse city’s buildingusestheurbannegative blocks.Thenewtrialcourt lane thatresults inaconsistentnegativespacethecenterof and design. In Oglethorpe’s plan, each city block is bifurcated by a reinforces further trial courthouse thecityplanthrough itsmassing distinct cityblocksaligningwiththeoriginalstreet grid.Thenew reestablished campusas”streets,” onthecourts re-creating three Consistent withOglethorpe’s plan,York andStatestreets havebeen to theparametersofOglethorpe’s plan. itselfrespondfabric ofthecityandtohavecourthouse directly was toreinstate, tothegreatest extentpossible,theoriginalhistoric the historicfabricofcity. Theconceptforthenewcourthouse Street,Montgomery resulting inanoversized cityblockthatviolated complex,thesestreets existing courts andlaneswereat terminated originally three separatecityblocks.Inthe course ofdevelopingthe vacantjail,andaparkinggarage,occupieswhatwas courthouse, complex,whichincludestheexisting and lanes.Thecourthouse Oglethorpe plan,whichisorganizedbyaseriesofstreets, squares, respectsThe designofthenewtrial courthouse Savannah’s historic Architect’s Statement thouse space ofYork Lane. strengthen further the massing concept defined bythe negative isreflected intheinteriorfacades,which volumes ofthecourthouse dimension.Theexteriortreatment emphasize thevertical oftwo atrium isskinnedwithlimestoneandpunchedopenings,detailedto Eachoftheflankingvolumesoneitherside courthouse. concept ofthenegativespacelanerunningthrough the The façadeoftheatriumisfullyglazedtostrongly reinforce the 27 court facilities continued on page 50 credits Design Architect/Architect of Record Dewberry Architects Inc. Fairfax, VA Associate Architect Barnard Architects Savannah Structural Engineer Wm. Hunter Saussy III PC Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection Engineer S.L. King Civil Engineer Thomas and Hutton Geotechnical Engineer Terracon Landscape Architect Inc. Smith and VandenBulck Owner Georgia Chatham County, Data of Facility Type Court of Construction Type New Site Area 157,682 SF Acres 3.27 Area of Building GSF New/Renovated/Total 165,000/NA/165,000 NAA New/Renovated/Total 141,887/NA/141,887 Construction Costs Estimated Site development costs: $4,100,000 Building costs: $55,900,000 construction costs: $60,000,000 Total Building cost/GSF: $364 Project Delivery Type Design-bid-build Funding Public bond issue Status of Project Estimated completion 2015 Capacity Number of courts: 13 civil of courts: criminal/high security, Type jfr13 28 Franklin CountyCommonPleasCou Sebring, Florida Columbus, Ohio clearly apparent from outside.Theelevatorcore, locatedonthe The courtroomsare arrangedalong amaincorridorinmanner to visuallyunderstandthebuildingandhowtheymovethrough it. program ofuseswithin.Theampleglasswallsystemsenableusers and tomorrow. Thebuilding’s isadirect simpleform reflection ofthe andtranslatesthemintoadesignstatementfortoday courthouse The visual expression captures all elements of a traditional a year. courtrooms, acriticalnecessityforjudgesmanaging15,000cases “settlement suites,”usedfortheresolution of caseswithouttyingup arraignment and ceremonial courtrooms, judges’ chambers, and program included 20 trial courtrooms, 10 magistratecourtrooms, to createthe alandmarkbuildingforthecommon pleascourt; The FranklinCountyCommissionerschallengedthedesignteam Architect’s Statement thouse lobby canopy, andoutdoorpublicspaces. maintained materials.Theproject includesacivicplaza,green reflect the dignified nature with durable and easily of the courts maximum lightintocourtrooms.Thepublicareas are designedto courtroom levels.Highceilingsandaneast-westorientationallow of scaleatthestreet levelandthencontinue ontocontainthe allow daylight to enter. and planes set up a priority Folding surfaces provide sunshadingtominimizesolargain, maximizeviews,and wallsystemswithoptimizedlouversandscreensGlazed curtain building’s LEED that increases efficiencyandsustainability andcontributestothe The glassfaçadeactsasafinelytuned,breathable membrane is sympathetictoadjacenthistoricbuildings. east-west viewsfrom theelevatorcabs.Thehorizontalorientation exterior, recalls clock tower and provides the traditional courthouse ® Gold certification, the first courthouse inOhio. thefirstcourthouse Goldcertification, 29 courtcourt ffacilitiesacilities continued on page 50 Credits Architect of Record DesignGroup Columbus, OH Design Architect Arquitectonica NY New York, Courts Architect RicciGreene Associates Structural Engineer Shelley Metz Baumann Hawk Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Heapy Engineering Civil Engineer DLZ Ohio Owner Franklin County Commissioners Data of Facility Type Court of Construction Type New Site area 167,053 SF Acres 3.8 Area of Building GSF New/Renovated/Total 324,579/NA/324,579 NAA New/Renovated/Total 211,153/NA/211,153 Construction Costs Actual Site development costs: $6,554,626 Building costs: $85,977,420 construction costs: $92,532,050 Total Building cost/ GSF: $265 Project Delivery Type Multiple prime contract, construction management Funding Public bond issue Status of Project Completed 2010 Capacity Service population: 1,163,414 Number of courts: 32 civil, of courts: criminal/high security, Type arraignment jfr13 30 George C.YoungU.S.Cou Sebring, Florida Orlando, Florida transparency andalsocreates therequired secure pathways. or clerestory office windows. The plan achieves openness and the edges,lightisbrought totheinteriorthrough glasspartitions into adeep,existingfloorplate.Where program elementsoccupy based on bringing daylight and views a simple organizing parti allowed thedesignteamtorethink thefloor planandestablish planning.Strippingtheinteriorbacktostructurecourthouse circulation systemsforusersthatare standard intoday’s modern Built in1975,theoriginalbuildingdidnotprovide theseparate urban core ofdowntownOrlando. as afocalpointofrevitalized campusinthegrowing government life tosignificantcivicstructures. Today, the Young buildingstands demonstratesthevalueofpreservingCourthouse andgivingnew oftheGeorgeC.YoungThe modernization FederalBuildingand Architect’s Statement thouse AndFederalBuilding reduced bothenergyandwaterconsumption. Transforming building theexistingstructure toahigh-performance renovation alsofocusedonenergyusageandsustainability. spaces. The and U.S. Attorneys chambers, and Clerk of Court the project provides four new bankruptcy courtrooms, four new andReinvestmentAct(ARRA), Funded bytheAmericanRecovery exterior settingthatanchorsthecampuswithincommunity. tower, mirrored bythe35-foot-tallsculpture, create adynamic the building’s approach. Theelegantproportions ofthecirculation inArchitecture oftheArt on thesiteaspart Program, highlights sculpture halfofthesite.TheRonaldBladen the existingparkonwestern the building.Thisadditionreorientsprocession theentry through whilealsofacilitatingsecureexterior transformation movementin pavilionandcirculationA newentry towerhighlightthebuilding’s Host oftheEllipse,whichwasrefurbished andinstalled 31 court facilities continued on page 50 CREDITS Architect DLR Group Orlando, FL Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing Engineer John J. Christie & Associates Inc. Civil Engineer Engineering Inc. Civil Klima Weeks Structural Engineer Master Consulting Engineers Inc. Landscape JCR Consulting Signage Mari Frith and Associates Inc. Audiovisual/Acoustics Security/Telecom Newcomb & Boyd Owner U.S. General Services Administration Region 4 Data of Facility Type Court of Construction Type Addition, renovation Site Area 71,800 SF Acres 1.65 Area of Building GSF New/Renovated/Total 15,740/188,260/204,000 NAA New/Renovated/Total 0/153,296/153,296 Construction Costs Estimated Site development costs: $1,408,500 Building costs: $46,798,940 construction costs: $48,207,440 Total Building cost/GSF: $229.36 Project Delivery Type CM at risk Funding ARRA Status of Project Completed 2012 Capacity Service population: 2,781,888 Number of courts: 4 of courts: civil, bankruptcy Type jfr13 32 John M.RollU.S.Cour Yuma, Arizona and technologies have been used to adapt the familiar classical an outdoorcivicspace.Twenty-first-century durablematerials Located nearthecity’s MainStreet, alsooffers thecourthouse services. and bankruptcycourt cham­ The 60,000-square-foot buildinghousestwocourtrooms,judges’ house deliversstreamlined, secure handlingofmassdefendants. immigrant detaineesalongthe Arizona-Mexico border,­ thecourt Designed toaccommodatethelargeandgrowing caseloadof advocate oftheproject. wounded Congresswoman GabrielleGiffords, hadbeenastrong chief federaljudgewhowaskilledinthe2011shootingthat Administration’s DesignExcellenceProgram. JudgeRoll,Arizona’s design-build competition sponsored by the General Services is targetingLEED The project,updates theclassic American courthouse. which sustainablyreinterpretsThe JohnM.RollU.S.Courthouse and Architect’s Statement bers, jury rooms, bers, jury and U.S. Marshals facilitiesaswell as district ® Gold certification, wasawarded Goldcertification, through a thouse sunlight totheperimeterspacesinside. trellis structurevinesthatprovide supporting dappled,controlled of thebuildingare shadedbya“livingwall,”weathered steel and openness in the justice system. The east and west faces lightness and transparency, conveying the balance of precedent with and glass contrasts a magisterial sense of permanence inset withadouble-heightglasslobby. Thejuxtapositionofstone The principalfaçadeiscomposedofflankingsandstonemasses basin), astoneplinth,andseriesofstaggered stonesitewalls. a landscapedarroyo (whichalsofunctionsasawater-retention processionenergy load.Theentry includessteelbridgesspanning steel columns,whichgeneratesmore than 21%ofthebuilding’s an expansivephotovoltaiccanopy, heldupbynaturallyweathered climate. Awelcoming“front porch” by attheentranceisformed elements ofentablature,totheharshdesert colonnade,andportico 33 court facilities credits Architect Ehrlich Architects CA Culver City, Design-Builder SUNDT Construction Inc. Structural Engineer Scott Caruso Turley Mechanical Engineer LSW Engineers Inc. Civil Engineer Psomas Landscape Architect Eyck Landscape Architects Inc. Ten Electrical Designer Sr. LSW Engineers Inc. Graphics Bezier CG (renderings) Owner U.S. General Services Administration Data of Facility Type Court of Construction Type New Site Area 122,000 SF Acres 2.8 Area of Building GSF New/Renovated/Total 60,000/NA/60,000 NAA New/Renovated/Total 38,600/NA/38,600 Construction Costs Estimated Site development costs: $3,000,000 Building costs: $20,000,000 construction costs: $23,000,000 Total Building cost/GSF: $383 Project Delivery Type Design-build Funding ARRA, federal government Status of Project Under construction Estimated completion 2013 Capacity Number of courts: 2 bankruptcy of courts: criminal/high security, Type jfr13 34 Lake CountyJudicialCenterExp T forms. forms. havebeenreinterpretedvocabulary at new scales and with new clearly expressive oftoday. Thematerialcolorpaletteandcampus transitional initsplanararchitecture ofbrick,glass,andmetalyet is context,thenewcourthouse with thisdiverselate-20th-century judicial building,andthecountycriminaljusticefacility. Inkeeping annexwith its circular thecourts atrium, the current courthouse, county’s assemblageofpublicbuildings,includingthe1922historic from came,inpart, the Design inspirationforthecourthouse landscaped trafficcircle. spans bothsidesofthedowntownthoroughfare andincorporatesa providing settingandspaceforprocession. aformal Thecampus addresses facilityformally MainStreet courts withapublicplaza, campus. Byreorienting theexistingjudicial building,thenew of buildingsandopenspacesonafour-block countygovernment The JudicialCenterexpansionservesasthekeystoneforacomplex Architect’s Statement avares, Florida ansion “tower,” whichcontainsthepublicelevators. are anchored bythesix-story, precast concrete andglassatrium assembly and clerical functions. These components and jury facing MainStreet feature sixcourtrooms,judicialchambers, issimplyorganized:upper-floorThe courthouse publicspaces and staff. the judicialprocess andhumanizethesetting forvisitors,judges, of spaces andcourtroomssymbolizetheopennessimpartiality expression, andmetallicsunscreen Sunlight-filledpublic cornice. arcaded withitsmasonry base,columnar historic courthouse floors. Thisprominent elevationevokes references totheopposing large windows mark thepublic lobbies ofthe court the courthouse; façaderevealsAlong MainStreet, thecivicpurposeof thesouthern 35 court facilities Credits Architect Heery International Orlando, FL Interior Design Heery International Electrical/Mechanical Engineer Heery International Landscape Architect Heery International Programming Carter Goble Lee Audiovisual/Technology/Acoustics Newcomb & Boyd Photographer Bob Egleston Owner Lake County Board of Commissioners Data of Facility Type Court of Construction Type renovation New, Site Area 453,024 SF Acres 10.4 Area of Building GSF New/Renovated/Total 168,026/120,100/288,126 NAA New/Renovated/Total 116,212/95,270/211,482 Construction Costs Actual Site development costs: $1,850,000 Building costs: $38,099,580 construction costs: $39,949,580 Total Building cost/GSF: $226.75 (new) Project Delivery Type Construction management Status of Project Completed 2013 Capacity Number of courts: 14 civil, of courts: criminal/high security, Type domestic, juvenile, hearings County Courthouse Florida - Site Plan - Site Plan County Courthouse jfr13 36 Stanley J.RoszkowkiU.S.Cour Sebring, Florida Rockford, Illinois expansion needsofthefacility. The building’s core consistsofa larger blocktoaccommodategreen spaceandmeetthe30-year The sitewasdevelopedbycombiningtwocityblocksintoone off-site. in abelow-grade,private,secure deck.Public parkingisprovided redevelopment ofthedowntown.Facilityparking isaccommodated is intended to be a catalyst for the rebirth and the courthouse detention facilityandadjacenttolocallawenforcement facilities, Located indowntownRockford neara recently constructed expansion ofasixthcourtroomwithinthefacility. room, agrandjury andspacetoaccommodatethefuture courts), five courtrooms(three andtwoU.S.bankruptcy U.S.districtcourts isaseven-level,198,000-square-foot The courthouse facilitywith Architect’s Statement thouse Excellence Program andisintendedtobe a100-yearfacility. wasdesignedundertheGSA’sspace. Thecourthouse Design District Clerks,U.S.Bankruptcyaswelljudicialoffice the USMS,U.S.Attorney’s Office,pretrial andprobation, U.S. operated bytheU.S.MarshalsServiceandtenant/officespacefor holding facilities contains maximum security court The courthouse six-courtroom planacross thepublicatrium. area toaccommodateanadditionalsixcourtrooms bymirroring the core willserveasthecenterpieceoffuture expansion,withsite five-story, publiccirculation. openpublicatriumandvertical This 37 court facilities

continued on page 50 CM at risk Funding General funds, adequate financing Status of Project Completed 2012 Capacity Number of courts: 5+1 future civil, of courts: criminal/high security, Type district, bankruptcy Credits Architect Dewberry Architects Inc. Peoria, IL Associate Architect Koetter Kim & Assoc. Inc. Boston Structural/Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/ Fire Protection Engineer Dewberry Architects Inc. Fit-Out/Interior Courts Planning/Tenant Design Dewberry Architects Inc. Civil Engineer McClure Engineering Assoc. Inc. Landscape Architect SmithGroup JJR LLC Owner U.S. General Services Administration Data of Facility Type Court of Construction Type New Site Area 266,300 SF Acres 6.1 Area of Building GSF New/Renovated/Total 198,000/NA/198,000 NAA New/Renovated/Total 105,000/NA/105,000 Construction Costs Actual Site development costs: $6,000,000 Building costs: $72,800,000 construction costs: $88,000,000 Total Building cost/GSF: $416 Project Delivery Type Design-bid-build, construction management, jfr13 38 Superio Cou Sebring, Florida Hanford, California and criminal court clerksareand criminalcourt cross-trained tohandleallpublic system isusedtocontrol publicaccesstothecounterareas. Civil counters are accessedfrom theatrium.Anelectronic queuing space for high-volume public counters. On the first floor, all public space thatsimplifiesway-findingand creates adequatewaiting The four-story isorganizedaround courthouse acentralatrium one roof inasafe,secure, andoperationallyefficientenvironment. under bringsallelementsofthe court Thenewcourthouse concerns. systemandraisesecurity operational efficiencyofthecourt location. Existing conditions at eachofthese facilities affect the proceedings thatoccurinthesurrounding area intoonecentral services and facilityistoconsolidateallcourt of thisnewcourt region isthecountyseatofKingsCounty. ofCalifornia, Theaim The city of Hanford, located in the south centralSan Joaquin Valley Architect’s Statement t ofCalirnia,CountyKings,HandCou courtroom settingforevidencepresentation. and viewsare controlled forsecuritypurposesandtomanagethe atrium spacegiveseachcourtroomnaturallight,althoughdaylight roomstrials, theratioofjury tocourtroomsincreases. Thecentral family courtrooms.Ontheupperfloors,designatedforcriminal the secondfloor, deliberation onejury roomservestheciviland 12 total courtrooms, one is for large ceremonial proceedings. On Levels two,three, andfourfeature fourcourtroomseach.Ofthe business. enter thebuildingtoconductcourt by reducing theneedforallvisitorstoproceed through securityand building’s exterior. Thisuniqueplanningfeature enhancesefficiency inquiries. Two counterareas alsocanbeaccessedalongthe thouse 39 court facilities credits Architect DLR Group Orlando, FL Architecture/Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing Engineer DLR Group Structural Engineer Buehler & Buehler SE Inc. Engineer Low Voltage TEECOM Design Group Civil Engineer Cunningham Engineering Corp. Acoustical Engineer Acoustical Engineering Consultants Owner Judicial Council of California, Courts Administrative Office of the Data of Facility Type Court of Construction Type New Site Area 417,200 SF Acres 9.577 Area of Building GSF New/Renovated/Total 160,065/NA/160,065 NAA New/Renovated/Total 104,193/NA/104,193 Construction Costs Estimated Site development costs: $7,474,281 Building costs: $85,245,043 construction costs: $92,719,324 Total Building cost/GSF: $579.26 Project Delivery Type Single prime contract, CM at risk Funding Public bond issue, state revenue bonds Status of Project Estimated completion 2015 Capacity Service population: 152,982 Number of courts: 12 civil, of courts: criminal/high security, Type domestic, juvenile, hearings continued on page 50 jfr13 40 Yuba CityCour Sebring, Florida Yuba City, California operational spacesthebuildingaffords. the “buildingasobject”andshiftingfocustosocial landscaping provides focus,softeningthepresence aprimary of placed overhangsandshadingdevices.Throughout theproject, and carefullybuilding orientation, a self-shading building form, Valley andare sustainablysupplemented through strategic subtractive spacesmitigatethehotclimateofCalifornia’s Central courtyards thatappear carved out ofthesolid surround. These of textured porcelain tile,withbrighter, crisp,intimateplaster The limitedpaletteofexteriormaterialsincludesaperimeterskin City’s isvacating. whichthecourt historiccourthouse, visiting public; (3) it evokes the shape and civic presence of Yuba courtyards thatprovide spatialamenitiesforbothstaff andthe a commandingregional presence; (2)itcreates fourdistinctive context thathasno“front” or“back”sides, givingthecourthouse goals: (1)itprovides fourstrong elevationsinaneighborhood cross-shaped building plan thatefficiently achieves three critical center neighborhood.Thedesignisbasedonaprofoundly simple, This projectthecenterpieceofYuba forms City’s developingcivic Architect’s Statement thouse 41 court facilities continued on page 51 Credits Architect RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Sonoma, CA Structural Engineer Rutherford and Chekene Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection Engineer WSP Flack + Kurtz Civil Engineer Northstar Engineering Group Landscape GLS Landscape Architecture Security Guidepost Solutions (formerly SafirRosetti) Owner Judicial Council of California, Courts Administrative Office of the Data of Facility Type Court of Construction Type New Site Area 178,160 SF Acres 4.09 Area of Building GSF New/Renovated/Total 73,840/NA/73,840 NAA New/Renovated/Total 46,621/NA/46,621 Construction Costs Estimated Site development costs: $3,724,800 Building costs: $34,675,200 construction costs: $38,400,000 Total Building cost/GSF: $470 Project Delivery Type Design-bid-build Funding Public bond issue Status of Project Estimated completion 2014 Capacity Service population: 94,919 Number of courts: 6 (expandable to 7) juvenile, of courts: criminal/high security, Type traffic jfr13 42 U.S. Cour Sebring, Florida Los Angeles, California civic landmark,andframethepublicrealm below. trellis, whichshadeoutdoorpublicspaces,signalthepresence ofa and above. Mediatingbetweenthetowerandbaseisaportico the entry, lobby, alignedtotheportico, whichisformally andtower atmosphere. is Theoneexceptiontothisinformality an informal the spiritofcitywithindoor/outdoorspaces,peopleplaces,and clarity, order, andresolution. Thearchitecture ofthebasecaptures The towercompositionrests on a three-storybaseandasserts walkingpace. assumingnormal journey to 69feet,withanaveragedistanceofjust55a13-second chamber doortothenearest courtroomdoorrangesfrom 53feet judicial chamberstocourtrooms.Thetraveldistancefrom each travel distancesfrom panoramicviews,andshort and alertness), benefits: plentifulcourtroomdaylight(proven toincrease acuity The towersolutionforcourtroomsandchambersoffers important occur within. the significanceofthesespacesandlegalproceedings that a vibrantdemocracy;andthecourtroomsare solidobjectsaffirming southwest feature sunscreens thatsignifydiverseperspectivesand are transparent andsuggestaccesstoall;judicialspacesfacing by acleararchitectural narrative: publiclobbiesfacingnortheast courtrooms organizedtwoperfloor. Eachelementisinformed towerisdistinguishedby The designofthecourthouse the public’s trustthrough theresponsible useofpublicassets. Angeles, functionalplanning,energyefficiency, andsafeguarding designthatcaptures acourthouse thespiritofLos formulating “Guiding PrinciplesforFederalArchitecture” anddesignexcellence, resolution harmonious ofmultifacetedpriorities:advancingthe coherent, relevant, and inspiring composition.The objective was a vision to synthesize symbolic and functional objectives into a wasguidedby concept fortheLosAngelesFederalCourthouse analogy fortheresolution ofcomplexmatters.Similarly, thedesign offers Lady Justicebalancingthescalesoftruthandfairness an Architect’s Statement thouse, LoAngele(DeignCompetition) 43 court facilities continued on page 51 Credits Architect NBBJ Seattle Architecture/Interior Design/EGD NBBJ Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Structural/ Building Envelope Engineer Buro Happold Geotechnical Engineer Shannon & Wilson Civil Engineer Psomas Fire Protection Engineer Rolf Jensen & Associates Owner U.S. General Services Administration Data of Facility Type Court of Construction Type New Site Area 155,500 SF Acres 3.6 Area of Building GSF New/Renovated/Total 545,000/NA/545,000 NAA New/Renovated/Total 365,000/NA/365,000 Construction Costs Estimated Site development costs: $6,000,000 Building costs: $274,000,000 construction costs: $280,000,000 Total Building cost/GSF: $503 Project Delivery Type Design-build Funding General funds Status of Project One of four commissioned design-build guaranteed proposals; not selected for construction Capacity Service population: 400 Number of courts: 24 of courts: criminal/high security Type

Law enforcement facilities jfr13 46 Johnson CountySheriff’CiminaliticsLaboator Olathe, Kansas flow whilemaintainingthehighestlevelsofsafetyandsecurity. in spacesspecificallydesignedtomaximizeefficiencyandwork the uniqueneedsofeachdiscipline.Careful planninghasresulted multimedia, evidencecontrol, andcrimesceneinvestigation)reflect toxicology, biology, latentprints,firearmsandtoolmarks,digital spaces(controlled nine laboratory substances,traceevidence, spacesbrought distinct laboratory togetherinonebuilding.The The newfacilityisnotasinglelaboratory, butactuallynine laboratories andcollaborativeworkspaceforinvestigators. facility provides lawenforcement withspecializedforensic research investigative forensic research andleadershipinsustainability. The The 62,500-square-foot labrealizes anewvisionforcollaborative Architect’s Statement a LEED building. Asaresult, itisanticipatedthatthebuildingwillachieve resources totheconstructionandenergyefficiencyof stewardship ofcountyresources bydevotingsignificant The countycontinueditscommitment to environmental courtyard. as wellshared centralplant,exercise room, andoutdoor parking, andsustainablelandscapehardscape solutions greater sitesecurity, watermanagement,secure storm employee Center, aLEEDGoldfacility. Benefitstobothbuildingsinclude The newcrimelabisco-locatedwiththeCountyCommunications ® Platinum certification. Platinumcertification. y 47 Law enforcement facilities continued on page 51 Credits Architect Architects PGAV KS Westwood, Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing Engineer Crime Lab Design Structural Engineer Moore P. Walter Civil Engineer Inc. Kline & Warren Shafer, Landscape Design Bowman Bowman Novick Laboratory Programming and Planning Crime Lab Design LEED Consultant Crime Lab Design Owner Kansas Johnson County, Data of Facility Type Law enforcement of Construction Type New Site Area 414,195 SF Acres 9.501 Area of Building GSF New/Renovated/Total 62,500/NA/62,500 NAA New/Renovated/Total 38,750/NA/38,750 Construction Costs Actual Site development costs: $1,250,000 Building costs: $21,400,000 construction costs: $22,650,000 Total Building cost/GSF: $342 Project Delivery Type Construction management Funding Public bond issue Status of Project Completed 2012 Capacity Service population: 552,991 Staff population: 56 (sworn, 28; nonsworn, 28) Forensics lab: 24,625 SF jfr13 48 Toronto PoliceService 14Dvsion T of the wall, while the publicly accessible spaces (lobby, community The interiorandexteriorsecure functionsare withintheboundary garden walldefinesthepubliczonefromA masonry the secure zone. includes themainentrancelobbyandcommunityroom. fitness room, andalunchroom withoutdoorspace.Publicspace spacesincludinglockers,a administrative offices,andsupport detention facilities,softandhard interview rooms, trainingspace, policing offices,specialproject bookingand facilities,sallyports, The program calledforcriminalinvestigation offices,community representatives servedontheDesignCommittee. Community inputwasessentialtotheprocess, andcommunity the designprocess andthearchitecture reflect thiscommitment. Service iscommittedtothephilosophyofcommunitypolicing,and residences, isacatalystforurbanrevitalization. TheToronto Police Grove family neighborhood,characterizedby century-old The newdivisionalbuilding,locatedinToronto’s historicDufferin Architect’s Statement oronto, Ontario cooling andgreen roofs. is targetingLEED were selected for durability and ease of maintenance. The building the connectiontocommunitylandscape.Otherinteriormaterials continued in the entrancelobby and communityroom, reinforcing maximizes naturallightintheworkplace.Exteriormaterialsare wall, establishing continuous clerestory glazing that masonry of theneighborhood.Thestone-cladsecondfloorfloatsover The reddishofthelandscapewallreflects masonry themateriality clear accesstothereception deskandthe communityroom. lobby. Conceivedasa“parkpavilion,”themainlobbyprovides above grade,accessedthrough asinglesecure off entry themain below grade.Allsecure officesare accommodatedintwofloors the community. Secure parkinganddetentionfacilitiesare located room, community landscape) are outside the wall,connectedto ® Silver and includes geothermal heatingand Silverandincludesgeothermal 49 Law enforcement facilities Credits Architect Stantec Architecture Ltd. Ontario Toronto, Civil Engineer Stantec Structural Engineer Halcrow Yolles Mechanical Engineer Smith & Andersen Landscape gh3 Electrical/IT/Audiovisual Mulvey & Banani Environmental Stantec Photographer Richard Johnson Owner Police Service Toronto Data of Facility Type Law enforcement of Construction Type New Site Area 73,748 SF Acres 1.693 Area of Building GSF New/Renovated/Total 117,369/NA/117,369 NAA New/Renovated/Total 69,714/NA/69,714 Construction Costs Actual Site development costs: $3,150,000 Building costs: $25,070,000 construction costs: $28,220,000 Total Building cost/GSF: $213 Project Delivery Type Design-bid-build Funding General funds Status of Project Completed 2012 Capacity Staff population: 380 (sworn, 350; nonsworn, 30) Forensics lab: 1,300 SF CREDITS continued

Wake County Franklin County Common STANLEY J. ROSZKOWSKI Detention Center Pleas Courthouse U.S. COURTHOUSE continued from page 23 continued from page 29 continued from page 37

Structural Engineer Landscape Architect Security/Technology Consultant Fleming and Associates PA MKSK (formerly Kinzelman Kline Gossman) Dewberry Architects Inc.

Plumbing/Mechanical/Electrical/ Security Cost Estimator Security Engineer Professional Systems Engineering Dewberry Architects Inc. HDR Architecture Court Technology Code Consultant LEED AP Polysonics Corporation Rolf Jensen & Assoc. Inc. HDR Architecture Elevator Consultant Acoustics/Audiovisual Consultant Sprinkler/Fire Protection Lerch Bates Polysonics Corp. NL Pettit + Associates Code Consultant Blast Engineering Consultant Food Service/Laundry Code Consultants, Inc. Hinman Consulting Engineers Foodesign Inc. Cost Estimating LEED Consultant Cost Estimating John A. Forgos & Associates SSR Cx LLC Harris & Associates Construction Consulting Photographer Construction Manager at Risk Roofing Consultant Brad Feinknopf/Feinknopf Photography Caddell Construction Inc. Stafford Consulting Engineering Photography Commissioning Ballogg Photography Inc. RMF Engineering George C. Young U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building Graphics Photographer continued from page 31 Dewberry Architects Inc. & Koetter Kim & Assoc., Mark Herboth, Herboth Photography Inc. Inc. (renderings) Contractor Skanska Chatham County Trial Superior Court of California, Courthouse Photographer County of Kings, Hanford Mark Boisclair Photography Inc. continued from page 27 Courthouse continued from page 39 Interior Design National Office Systems Landscape Architect

Cost Estimating The HLA Group The Strong Group Construction Manager Court Technology Sundt Construction Inc.

jfr 13 50 Dewberry Architects Inc./National Center for Signage States Courts (NCSC) Square Peg Design LEED Consultant Graphics Trident Sustainability Group DLR Group (renderings) Building Envelope Consultant Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.

Graphics ArchiBIM (exterior & interior renderings) Yuba City Courthouse Johnson County Sheriff’s continued from page 41 Criminalistics Laboratory continued from page 47 Acoustics/Audiovisual Charles M. Salter Associates Inc. Peer Review Building Envelope Consultant Sustainable Design Heitman Associates Simon & Associates Acoustics/Audiovisual Communications Cost Coffeen Fricke & Associates Inc. Davis Langdon Cost Estimating Elevator Construction Management Resources Inc. Syska Hennessy Group Inc. Commissioning Agent Waterproofing Virocon Simpson Gumpertz and Heger Geotechnical Environmental Design Terracon Treadwell & Rollo, A Langan Company Photographer Specifications Writer Michael Robinson DTR Consulting Services

Signage Square Peg Design

Graphics RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture (renderings)

U.S. Courthouse, Los Angeles (Design Competition) continued from page 43

Blast Engineer Hinman Consulting Engineers

Lighting Buro Happold 51 General Contractor

Mortenson cr edit s

Elevator Consultant, AEC Greenbush Constulting

Audiovisual Design Veneklasen Associates

Security/Hardware/Telecom Consultant TransTech Systems

Graphics NBBJ (renderings) index of architects

Arquitectonica HOK Franklin County Common Pleas Courthouse (Design Architect)...... 28 Richard E. Arnason Justice Center...... 6

Barnard Architects KMD Architects Chatham County Trial Courthouse (Associate Architect)...... 26 San Diego County Women’s Detention Facility (Architect/Architect of Record)...... 10 CGL Companies New Model Prison for Mexico’s Federal Penitentiary Koetter Kim & Assoc. Inc. System...... 20 Stanley J. Roszkowski U.S. Courthouse (Associate Architect)...... 36

DesignGroup Little Diversified Architectural Consulting Wake County Detention Center, Phase 2 Expansion Franklin County Common Pleas Courthouse (Architect (Architect/Prime Architect of Record)...... 22 of Record)...... 28 NBBJ Dewberry Architects Inc. U.S. Courthouse, Los Angeles (Design Competition)...... 42 Chatham County Trial Courthouse (Design Architect/Architect of Record)...... 26 NORR Limited Architects and Engineers Waterloo Region Courthouse...... 14 Stanley J. Roszkowski U.S. Courthouse (Architect)...... 36 Parkin Architects Limited DLR Group Rankin Inlet Healing Facility, Nunavut Territory...... 2 George C. Young U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building...... 30 PGAV Architects Superior Court of California, County of Kings, Johnson County Sheriff’s Criminalistics Laboratory...... 46 Hanford Courthouse...... 38 RicciGreene Associates Ehrlich Architects Franklin County Common Pleas Courthouse (Courts Architect)...... 28 John M. Roll U.S. Courthouse...... 32 RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Heery International Yuba City Courthouse...... 40 Lake County Judicial Center Expansion...... 34 Stantec Architecture Ltd. Toronto Police Service 14 Division...... 48 HDR Architecture Wake County Detention Center, Phase 2 Expansion (Associate Architect)...... 22

HMC Architects San Diego County Women’s Detention Facility (Associate Architect)...... 10 jfr 13 52 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS