Supreme Court Building (original) (raw)
Related papers
Capitolio de Puerto Rico - Office Buildings for the Legislators
National Register of Historic Places, 2009
The office buildings for the legislators, adjacent to the Capitolio de Puerto Rico, are significant under Criterion C on a statewide level as they represent an early introduction of the Modern Movement ideals within Puerto Rico’s architectural milieu. By integrating traditional and innovative concepts, materials and construction techniques, their design proves a unique concern towards the island’s tropical context and the preservation of an existing historic monument. Within Toro Ferrer Arquitectos’ body of work, its design stands out as one of their most representative examples of Commonwealth architecture. Despite interior alterations –specifically in the office space layout- and a rehabilitation project carried out in 2004, both buildings retain sufficient integrity to convey their significance.
DEVELOPMENT AND ORGANIZATION OF COURT BUILDINGS SPACE IN THE USA IN THE XX-XXI CENTURY
2015
The article introduces the results of the research concerning the patterns of appearance as well as development of modern court buildings in the USA. The history of specialized judicial buildings in the ancient times is traced. As a result their special architectural characters are discovered. Besides the origin and development of court places in England in the 11th – 19th centuries is analyzed. The examples of the first court buildings in colonial America are given and their further development during the first decades after the independence was declared are studied. Taking the American court buildings of the mid-20th and the beginning of 21th century as an example the basic principles of development of public places are identified. Also the communications schemes are studied and classified. The development of courtroom place in accordance with the evolution of a place for public is analyzed as well as the development of courtrooms under the influence of changes in judicial procedures. Finally the modern standard requirements of courtroom organization made for newly constructed buildings are given.
Architecture organizes and structures space, making it intelligible, understandable, and capable of being interpreted, inasmuch as the exterior and interior, as well as the materials and objects present therein, can facilitate or inhibit our activities through how they imply and represent certain messages. In the particular case of courthouses—the spaces of justice and of judgment—we stand in front of specific places (courtrooms, offices, corridors and circulations, detention zones, and waiting areas, sometimes also known as the famous salles des pas perdus), with a particular organization of the entire building around the courtroom, seen as the heart or the node of this type of architectural building. For more than two centuries, courthouse architecture was dominated by an official and recognizable type of building (the Temple of Justice first, and later on the Palais de Justice). In contemporary times, however, since there are no longer static aesthetic rules/norms, the new courthouse buildings need to be simultaneously functional, open, and monumental. This requirement to represent and materialize justice in democracy is, nevertheless, difficult and contradictory.
Design of the High Court of Australia
PhD Dissertation, University of Sydney, 2017
Abstract: The High Court of Australia is a seminal work of architecture, recognised nationally after twenty-five years by the Royal Australian Institute of Architects 'Enduring Architecture' award, and internationally, as one of only ten Australian buildings registered on the Union of International Architects 'Architectural Heritage of the 20th Century'. Since its construction in 1980, the design of the High Court has been consistently ascribed to the architect Colin Madigan – a director of the firm Edwards Madigan Torzillo and Briggs. It is said to embody a 'unity of concept' with Madigan's National Gallery, and to accord with 'universal' principles, geometric 'design laws' and the 'craft-based attitude' of 'Madigan's architecture'. Such sustained references have effectively established a dominant and institutionally sanctioned narrative. A body of other acclaimed work produced by the firm is similarly construed as Madigan's oeuvre. In fact, the design of the High Court resulted from a national competition held between 1972 and 1973. Documented evidence credits its 'Design Team' and identifies architect Christopher Kringas as the 'Director in Charge'. The stated 'Design Concept' does not mention universal principles or geometric laws, nor does the High Court's architectonic design accord with such descriptors. Kringas's design role is further evident in the firm's most significant work. This thesis traces and critically reviews the prevailing narrative of the design of the High Court. Behind-the-scenes correspondence, original archives and oral histories expose machinations around its authorship and build a counter-narrative that re-contextualises the High Court according to Brutalist ideology, nation building agendas, individual agency and design experimentation, crystallised by an architectural competition. An alternate reading of the High Court design is developed, pointing to a radicalisation and shift of the Brutalist agenda, and salient innovations previously unexamined. Rights & Permissions: The author retains copyright of this thesis. It may only be used for the purposes of research and study. It must not be used for any other purposes and may not be transmitted or shared with others without prior permission.