Order in the Court
From the vantage point of historic Church Circle in Annapolis, Md., the Anne Arundel County Courthouse’s restored edifice closely resembles its late 19th century appearance. But, hidden by the landscape’s natural downward slope is a 280,000-square-foot addition that houses a state-of-the-art court facility.
According to Robert Wallace, court administrator for the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, "the courthouse was gutted and renovated to make the building useful while preserving its history. Its new addition fits so well that people come to me saying that they can’t see it."
Historical Significance
Both county officials and residents take pride in having Maryland’s third oldest operating courthouse located in their historic town. Since it’s construction in 1824, residents have chosen to renovate and expand it five different times rather than build a new structure in a different location to handle the evolving court system. For this most recent restoration and expansion, the project required a commitment from three terms of county executives and county council members-actual planning began in 1991 but the court’s restoration had been in the works since the 1970s.
|
Project Data Owner: Anne Arundel County |
"We were lucky to have the support of so many officials over the past ten years," said Wallace. "The project probably would have gone more quickly if we weren’t located in a historic downtown location."
Each previous renovation was an attempt to modernize and expand the original one-courtroom facility, which initially featured flat, Federal-style architecture. In 1892, Baltimore architect Jackson Coale Gott turned it into a three-dimensional, Georgian Revival structure, featuring an entrance tower, cupola, and corner pavilions.
"On most historic projects, you pick a restoration period first," said Neale Quenzel, principal at John Milner Associates, the historic preservation consultant for this project. "You usually choose from the original date of construction, the date of a particular event, or the final period to which it evolved. In this case we chose the evolved turn of the century architecture for the restoration rather than its original Federal architecture."
Historic photos made it easy to preserve the exterior of the courthouse, which included a restored front entrance and walkway, new slate roof, repointed and cleaned exterior brickwork, and window replacements. However, the lack of historic documentation made it difficult to determine details of the interior. To accurately restore the interior, including the preservation of the original courtroom for ceremonial purposes, architects had to investigate building materials, discern what modern materials were installed, note the number of paint layers on the walls, and inspect scars on exterior walls.
Design and Space Requirements
To meet the county’s expanding legal needs, officials agreed to a large addition that echoed the building’s Georgian Revival architecture but did not overshadow the surrounding community. It was decided early on that renovating the courthouse’s 1952 Colonial Revival wing, which housed nine small courtrooms, land records office, and other court offices, would not provide the additional space the county required.
"The 1952 addition was never intended to be a courthouse," said Wallace. "Courtrooms were 20 x 40 feet of converted office space and didn’t provide a good flow. No one worried about security at the time so it was designed with doors everywhere in the building and the only elevator was used by both jurors and prisoners. Jurors had to wait for trials in hallways with court files since we didn’t have enough storage room. People shared offices and the entire building looked dirty and dark."
The County hired Spillis Candela DMJM to replace the wing with an addition extending from the back of the historic courthouse, filling all available space on the county’s lot. Through the use of indents and setbacks, the addition’s exterior matches the scale of the courthouse and masks the structure’s incredible mass. While the architects used red brick and classic cornice details to emulate the courthouse’s architecture, they designed a modern, one-story glass wall shaped like a grand piano to connect the courthouse to the addition. It symbolizes a path from old to new.
"We preserved the two-story street façade and made the building appear to be the same size as the surrounding ones," said Howard Melton, principal designer for Spillis Candela DMJM. "In this 19th century town, no other buildings are this large, and we respected that."
Because of the project’s historic nature, both Spillis Candela DMJM and John Milner Associates negotiated with the Annapolis Historic District Commission and the Maryland Historical Trust to reach an acceptable design for the courthouse and addition. The parties used a series of work sessions to create a design that blended modern features with an established architectural style.
"They spent hours working and re-working their designs with the state and local historic committees," said Wallace. "We got a much better building because of it and I got to see how important it is to have the right people working on your project."
Current and Future Needs
The addition features space for the sheriff’s office, orphan’s court, office of the state’s attorney, and land records. A family division employing 13 people and a family waiting area with computers and televisions are two new areas added to the facility. These were space needs the county had not considered just five years ago. Since the addition was built to address future needs through the year 2025, it has available space to accommodate three more courtrooms and judges chambers.
"In our planning, we had two goals: to make it fit and to make it usable," said Wallace. "We needed to keep the addition within our site, and we needed to make it functional by both current and future standards. We took into consideration where departments should logically be placed to be user friendly."
By locating the licensing department, case assignment office, jury assembly areas, and the law library by the main entrance, the facility provides easy access to the most heavily utilized departments. Beyond these areas, wide corridors lead to ten well-lit and spacious courtrooms and open up to both the neighborhood and surrounding landscape through glass walls and ceilings. The large corridors provide adequate space for the high volume facility and provide improved visual security. Utilizing one main entrance area with a security check, along with security cameras throughout the facility, also helps maintain a safe facility.
Courtrooms house remote audio recording and broadcasting systems as well as multi-use podiums for evidence presentation. Councilors insert videotapes or compact disks into the podiums and the information is broadcast on computer screens used by litigants, jurors, judges, witnesses, and the public. The podiums also are equipped with an interior camera so physical evidence can be placed inside and broadcast-rather than passed-around the courtroom.
Additional technologies include video television monitors that allow judges to communicate with detainees at various detention centers. Therefore, the court’s arraignment and bail processes have become faster and more efficient since detainees no longer have to be shuttled to and from the courthouse for these procedures.
Working on Site
However, achieving all the design goals on a constricted site posed several challenges for the construction manager, Jacobs. The firm worked with the city of Annapolis to close off the parking lane of a one-way street to stage materials and provide parking for subcontractors.
"We kept all deliveries within our construction lane and we were careful with the north side of the site in order to avoid blocking the emergency entrance of a nearby hospital," said Jennifer May, project manager from Jacobs. "Because of the limited area, we carefully sequenced material deliveries. In most cases we scheduled delivery for products on the day we’d use the materials."
The city limited construction hours to between 7 a.m. and sunset Monday through Saturday to avoid disturbing the surrounding neighborhood. Construction was carried out in two phases to minimize disruption to the busy downtown district and the continuing operations of the court. Phase I involved the construction of the four-story addition, which became the temporary home for court employees as Phase II, work was on the historic structure, was completed.
"We never missed a day of court operations during this project even with the restrictions," said Wallace. "While construction did fall about a year behind in schedule, it was mainly due to the project’s historic approval process."
Besides inadequate construction parking and material staging areas, the biggest construction challenges, according to Jeff King, program manager for Jacobs, involved incorporating all the systems from the new courts addition into the old courthouse, and reacting to existing conditions as they were uncovered during the renovation.
"The unforeseen on restoration projects always disrupts construction," King said. "For example, any time we’d open a wall, we’d find something new we had to investigate or clean up. The project was underbid by subcontractors due to existing conditions such as hazardous materials and rotting original materials, but there’s no way anyone could have known that ahead of time."
To carry the project through construction, the county used its long time project management firm, Heery International, to oversee the general contractor, CER, and construction manager, Jacobs.
"At first I thought that it was redundant to have both a project manager and a construction manager," said Wallace. "But, I discovered that for a project this massive, each firm plays a vital role. Each firm focused on different issues and I knew that someone was looking at all the details. In the end, we got a much better building because of it."
While the building was originally budgeted around $40 million in 1987, its actual construction cost was $62.5 million, which derived mainly from the project’s historic requirements, along with new court technology.
"It would have been a more cost-efficient decision to build a new courthouse outside of the historic district, but we would have lost a part of history," said Wallace. "The city of Annapolis made concessions and variances and were very cooperative, which helped keep this great building where it is. Through listening, good planning, and knowing what we wanted, we brought the 21st century to an 1800s building."