Taking the Lead

Set in a reclaimed brownfield area, the Wayne L. Morse United States Courthouse, in Eugene, Oregon, is an iconographic structure that engages the public at a time when many courthouses and government buildings are nondescript facilities resembling commercial offices or fortified bunkers. This striking change  in architectural statement was the product of deliberate intent and ideological exchange.

With federal courts  and offices dispersed throughout various facilities in Eugene, plans for a new courthouse offered the  opportunity to bring all of the courts, as well as the offices performing functions for them, into one building.  The $74-million project was carried out as part of an initiative within the General Services Administration (GSA) called the Design Excellence Program, which stresses creativity and top-notch designs. In addition,  GSA requirements mandated that new construction projects achieve certification from the Leadership in  nergy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system, which is administered by the U.S. Green Building  ouncil, of Washington, D.C. The agency encourages projects to achieve at least a silver LEED  rating.

The  project garnered interest from some of the nation’s most notable architects. After a selection process that included a design competition, the GSA awarded the courthouse design to the Pritzker Architecture Prize– winning architect Thom Mayne, a founding principal of the firm Morphosis, of Santa Monica, California. Also selected was the DLR Group, of Portland, Oregon, the project’s architect of record. Although Morphosis had designed other government projects in the past, the Eugene undertaking was the firm’s first foray into courthouse design.

The courthouse provides space for 11 tenants that serve the District of Oregon as part of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, including the district court, the magistrate court, and the bankruptcy court. Accommodating the various needs of the tenants was a formidable undertaking. The GSA had developed a preliminary program that encompassed the wishes of all of the building’s tenants, and the design team conducted a detailed verification that included a matrix of all of the tenants’ requirements for the building systems. Kim Groves, a principal of Morphosis, says, “The extensive programming process allowed us to explore options between the relationships of the courtrooms to other building functions and their circulation requirements. This was critical because we knew we wanted the courtrooms to be a very expressive feature of the building.”

The tenants brought their own individual design guidelines, challenging the designers to create similar standards for systems and finishes that would suit everyone. As the design took shape, Morphosis decided to “stack” the building according to function and to emphasize the courtrooms rather than bury them within the building envelope.

The courthouse has a partial basement level with 80 parking spaces below grade, and above grade there are five stories. Three-fourths of the programmed space is for offices, so these functions were concentrated in a podium on the first and second floors. The podium includes offices for the courts and their clerks, as well as for the U.S. attorney, probation and pretrial services, the U.S. Marshals Service, the GSA, U.S. trustees, two U.S.  senators, and one member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The structure above the podium assumes a more free-formed shape.  Three pavilions house the six courtrooms in pairs—two for the district courts, two for the magistrate courts, and two for the bankruptcy courts—as well as jury rooms, and these pavilions are located on the third floor. The fourth floor accommodates mechanical space and jury rooms located between each pair of courtrooms with open areas that afford double-height ceilings in the courtrooms, rising from the third to the fifth floor. Judges’ chambers and two judicial library spaces are located on the fifth floor. The podium and pavilions are connected by a central atrium.

The courtrooms were a central focus of the design process, and the designers forged a strong partnership with the chief judge for the District of Oregon, Michael R. Hogan. Discussions about the role of architecture in society and the function of the courthouses spurred members of the architectural design team and the court to tour notable judicial facilities in France, including the law courts in Bordeaux designed by the Richard Rogers Partnership (now Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners, of London) and the courthouse in Nantes designed by the French architect Jean Nouvel. Working together, they reorganized the traditional courtroom.

A wooden soffit along the perimeter of each courtroom lends symmetry to the space and helps to focus attention on the bench, conveying the importance of the events and the hierarchy of the participants.

As a singular element, the jury box disrupts the symmetry of a courtroom. Morphosis remedied this by inserting a wooden soffit above the jury box and extending it along the perimeter of the rooms, creating a volume within the volume and restoring balance to the space. “When you enter the courtroom it feels symmetrical, and the unique shape of the room focuses the attention toward the bench,” explains Groves. “This gives you an immediate sense of procedure and ceremony and an understanding of the hierarchy within.”

As part of the aesthetic goals it endeavors to achieve in its designs, Morphosis seeks to convey what is taking place within a building to the outside world. The pavilion forms do not break at 90-degree angles because they aren’t meant to depict walls but to articulate the curving courtrooms. The flexibility offered by steel made it an ideal choice for mirroring the courtroom shapes on the building’s exterior. Each pavilion is different because the forms adhere to the area requirements of the courtrooms themselves. The result is a free-flowing design with cylinders that tip inward or have sloping sides, making the building an architectural sculpture.

The designers also used the exterior stainless steel skin to provide a subtle allusion to the founding precepts of American law. Steel bands of varying widths that envelop the pavilions symbolize the passages of the U.S. Constitution on a conceptual level. Groves says their fluidity is a nod to the premise that the law is a progressive process, while the ribbons seem to “fly out into space” to reflect the notion that the axioms of the Constitution are everlasting. The flow of the bands outlines the form of the courtrooms and follows the interior movement between the three pavilions.

In contrast, the rectangular podium aligns with Eugene’s urban landscape. The two-story base is lined in glass to create an open, inviting public entrance at the pedestrian level.  Inside, the translucence creates a light, spacious atrium and a hospitable working environment for the building’s occupants.

From a structural standpoint, the two distinct spacescalled for completely separate structural systems. The Portland, Oregon, office of Seattle-based KPFF Consulting Engineers became involved during preliminary concepts to help determine which systems would be optimal for the building.

On the basis of recommendations contained in a geotechnical report conducted by West Coast Geotech, Inc., of West Linn, Oregon, in November 2001, the structural engineers specified isolated spread footings to support the building’s interior columns and continuous footings for the perimeter basement walls. Mat foundations are used beneath the entire footprint of three perimeter concrete cores that are located at the stairway towers.

Although calculations ensured that the basement’s excavation would not reach the water table, the project is located near the Willamette River, so groundwater pressure was an issue. KPFF’s civil engineers designed the basement to accommodate extreme weather conditions by placing relief valves and pumps in the basement slab. The valves allow water to enter and the pumps remove it.

The two-story podium is approximately 65 by 96 m in plan. A concrete framed structure with regular column spacing that forms a 9 by 9 m grid is the main support up to and including the third floor. The primary structure above the third floor is a steel frame designed to accommodate the irregular interior shapes, which feature less uniform column placements. The steel framing also achieves the open space requirements in the courtrooms and supports the unique shape of the building’s exterior. These different primary structural systems integrate well with the disparate layouts of the base and the individual pavilions.

Elevation

Plan

For the upper courtroom pavilions, the engineers opted for a structural steel framing system with composite metal deck filled with concrete topping. Structural steel beams, girders, and columns support the system, which offered an economical alternative and was seen as being best suited to the long, irregularly shaped spans.

In addition to its economic advantage, the concrete floor system of the lower levels is inherently superior for vibration control. Because the long spans and open spaces in the upper courtroom levels are susceptible to vibrations from footfalls, the slab thickness and structural framing were designed to limit vibrations to slightly perceptible levels as defined in Floor Vibrations Due to Human Activity (Chicago: American Institute of Steel Construction, 1997). The design also limited sound transmission from the mechanical equipment, which was slipped into tight spaces on the fourth floor adjacent to the courtrooms.

The engineers designed the building to withstand lateral forces from wind and seismic loads in accordance with the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code (Washington, D.C.: International Code Council) as amended by the State of Oregon. The performance of the building during a seismic event is an essential consideration for the structural design. Although the project site is classified as seismic zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code, the maps published by the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program—which was established by Congress to reduce the risks to life and property from earthquakes when it passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977—was used to obtain particular ground motion criteria.

The concrete stair tower cores unify the podium structure with the more curvilinear courtroom building, opposite. Three exterior reinforcedconcrete shear wall cores at the stair towers work with perimeter concrete moment-resisting frames to provide the lateral-force-resisting system. The glass curtain wall and the access ramp at the front entry, above, create an open, inviting presence for the courthouse.

Accommodating the architecture’s sense of movement was in complete contrast to the direct orthogonal design generally required for seismic systems, challenging the engineers to develop innovative solutions. The lateralforce-resisting system for the lower podium structure consists of a combination of three exterior reinforced-concrete shear wall cores at the stair towers and perimeter concrete moment-resisting frames. The concrete stair tower cores became the unifying structural elements of the building, from the base of the podium through the upper pavilion structures.

The pavilions utilized structural steel moment-resisting frames that formed a dual system with the concrete shear wall cores. In the courtrooms, however, the tall (8.5 m) floor-to-floor heights required a moment-resisting frame system offering higher performance. The structural steel moment-resisting frames employ slotted-web moment connections, which embody a proprietary ductile beamto-column connection design that meets the performance criteria established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in its publication Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings (FEMA 350). The engineers incorporated deeper column sections—up to W610—to provide adequate stiffness. The combination of the special moment connections and the use of these deep columns made it possible for the moment frame system to meet the performance requirements at the taller spaces.

A walkway bridge provides access across the upper pavilions. Because the pavilions are independent structures above the concrete podium, they will respond independently to a seismic event. The structural steel bridge is fixed to one of the pavilions and slides independently of the second pavilion, which is connected to the third pavilion. This allows the bridge to accommodate the differential movement between two pavilions’ attachments. Incorporating the sliding joint detail into the canted, curving surfaces presented its own challenge. The engineers had to account for the variations in the exterior skin while accommodating movement within the joint. To do this, they used pockets in framing at the joints and designed crumble zones for design-level seismic events.

Another essential consideration in the design of this structure was its performance during a blast event, which required that the building meet several extreme loading demands. Structural elements in the building were carefully analyzed and detailed to meet GSA design guidelines for preventing progressive collapse.

The facade’s steel shroud consists of glass curtain walls and metal panels connected to metal studs. Engineers designed a secondary steel tube frame to support the curving and canted exterior skins and form the tall atrium and entry stair spaces. To accommodate lateral loads imposed by wind, seismic, and blast events, the complex structural steel tube frame was braced back to the primary building frame.

The project’s contractor—J.E. Dunn Northwest, Inc., a part of the Dunn Construction Group, which is based in Kansas City, Missouri—participated in a 16-month preconstruction process. When J.E. Dunn proposed a 24-month construction schedule for the complicated project, the owner was highly skeptical. The preselection of key subcontractors, however, enhanced the contractor’s confidence in the proposed schedule. J.E. Dunn initiated a process wherein it selected key subcontractors through a competitive process and brought them on during the preconstruction and completion of design phases. The selected subcontractors included mechanical and electrical subcontractors, metal skin fabricators, curtain wall fabricators, and casework (custom-built furniture or cabinetry) disciplines, and they assisted J.E. Dunn in validating the proposed schedule. Moreover, the subcontractors selected in this “design/assist” approach met regularly with the design engineers to provide input about their means and methods in order to create a cost-effective design. During preconstruction, J.E. Dunn suggested to the GSA that the architects locate their offices on-site to facilitate prompt field decisions and maintain the schedule. The close collaboration throughout the project that this proximity afforded enabled the team to deliver the courthouse on time.

The complex forms of the pavilions and the exterior envelope’s tight tolerances demanded precise coordination. For example, if the steel panels were slightly off, the clearances for doorframes and walls could be affected. Moreover, the transition from the grid pattern of the concrete podium to the free-formed steel structure pavilions above was a challenge for the construction team. Morphosis remained actively involved in the execution of the details by using several computer software systems and creating a construction-ready three-dimensional model to help the team realize its architectural vision. Developed as the only way to accurately work within the building’s geometric relationships and impediments, these tools formed a valuable building information management (BIM) system for the project before a particular BIM program was introduced for the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) work.

The information from the BIM systems enabled the designers and contractors to determine the best placement of the MEP systems in the building and to define the pavilions’ free-form exterior skin framing for steel detailing and fabrication. With more than 40,000 sq ft (3,716 m²) of curvilinear space, the exterior skin was composed of 14,000 individual attaching steel panels designed and installed through a design/build process. The team performed all of the design, shop drawings, and verification for the panels electronically. Morphosis provided electronic versions of the panels’ details and exact offsets to the manufacturing subcontractor, which then created electronic shop drawings and submitted them on an incremental basis for review.

Morphosis, DLR, and J.E. Dunn checked the drawings for panel location and installation before turning them over to the GSA. Because the absence of paper drawings was inconsistent with the GSA’s standard processes, special approval was required. “It was a carefully managed production that generated a highly successful outcome,” says Gail Wikstrom, a vice president of J.E. Dunn. “In the end, only six of the fourteen thousand steel panels had to be modified in the field.”

Ensuring that the building’s operational performance would meet expectations was another priority for the team. The most efficient heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system for the building was an air distribution system under the floor, but the GSA had experienced mixed results with this type of system in the past. The team diligently examined the HVAC’s effectiveness in relation to the wall placement, penetrations, and integration with the exterior curtain wall. After the first installation, the team tested the system, found and corrected deficiencies, and used this information to guide the remaining installations. Now in use, the system is not only performing as intended but also exceeding expectations.

The team’s efforts to provide a high-performance building for the GSA resulted in an outstanding achievement: the Wayne L. Morse United States Courthouse became the first of GSA’s new construction projects to earn gold certification in the LEED rating system. The project achieved this rating by including a variety of measures—pertaining to everything from construction through building operations—that contribute to occupant health and resource conservation. For example, during construction, J.E. Dunn diverted more than 90 percent of the construction waste from the landfill. Most materials were taken to a recycling center for sorting and incorporation into a commercial reuse process. Earth and rubble concrete were recycled locally and crushed for incorporation into local installations.  The project also incorporated locally manufactured materials, which saved on transportation requirements, and it exceeded the program’s criteria for using recycled material.

Furthermore, the contractor used an indoor air quality management plan during construction and conducted a two-week flush-out period prior to occupancy. The project included low-emission adhesives, sealants, paints, and carpets, and emissions were measured by carbon dioxide monitors. A “green” housekeeping program will limit the introduction of harsh chemicals into the indoor environment, and this long-term strategy earned the project another innovation credit within the LEED system.

Energy-efficient measures such as the under-floor air distribution system, radiant floor heating and cooling, high-efficiency chillers and condensing boilers, efficient lighting, and mechanisms to control the admission of daylight helped the courthouse exceed by 38 percent the levels set forth in the standard ASHRAE 90.1-1999 (Energy Standard for Buildings except Low-Rise Residential Buildings), promulgated by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. Moreover, the GSA purchased renewable energy certificates that equate to 50 percent of the project’s energy consumption.

The combined effect of waterless urinals and low-flow toilets and faucets reduces potable water use by 43 percent. The landscape irrigation systems also greatly reduce water consumption, as they make use of native and droughttolerant plant species over 60 percent of the nonbuilding area.

The site considerations that met LEED criteria include measures to reduce storm-water runoff by 30 percent. The project also provided open space adjacent to the building equal to the building footprint, and alternative transportation was encouraged through the availability of bicycle storage areas, showers, and changing rooms as well as the courthouse’s proximity to public bus and rail service.

Although the building is near Eugene’s downtown core, the courthouse marks the first development on this particular site. The city hopes that by revitalizing the former brownfield, the courthouse will renew the neighborhood and spur development nearby. The lack of a built environment or even a proposed plan for future projects posed some interesting challenges. From a design perspective, Morphosis found it difficult to create in a vacuum. “Our designs always respond to context, and this site provided very little,” says Groves. “Not knowing what would be built on the adjacent property, combined with the barriers around the site, made us question everything—even where to put the front door.”

Downtown Eugene lies to the south, but a highway exit crosses the street, creating a visual barrier and preventing pedestrian access and vehicle circulation to the courthouse. Nonetheless, the south face was the best alternative for the building entry as the highway lies to the west of the site, train tracks lie to the north, and future development to the east remains unknown. So Morphosis created a large plaza for public demonstrations at the building entry. The City of Eugene has plans to establish a pedestrian walkway along the street to provide access to the plaza.

To meet security restrictions, the team restricted direct vehicular access to the building with a 3.2 ft (1 m) tall perimeter wall around the courthouse. The landscape design corresponds to the height of the podium and fills the space between the perimeter wall and the building on three sides.

The GSA’s security measures also include a minimum height requirement for grades in relation to adjacent roadways. The city has plans for a roadway to be constructed in the future along the north side of the site, and the open space to the east may include a road as well. The civil design had to incorporate flexibility for whatever might come, according to Matt Dolan, a civil engineer and principal of KPFF Consulting Engineers. “We had to design a site that met the requirements for adjacent roadways that don’t yet exist. It was an interesting process to get the pieces to fit together,” Dolan says.

The building’s dedication took place on December 1, 2006. Before the construction’s completion, Morphosis was unsure how the citizens of Eugene would view the extraordinary structure, but the public response has been overwhelmingly positive. The building accomplished the difficult task of meeting strict security standards without the measures implemented being visually obtrusive. Far from the closed appearance of a protected compound, the entry’s overhang, stairway, and ramp adjoin the plaza to welcome visitors, and the podium’s glazing forges connections between the building and its environment. The curving pavilions manifest the courtrooms, architecturally exhibiting their presence to the community. A remarkable union of form and function, this signature courthouse has received high praise from the GSA, the public, and the design community. 

Gaafar Gaafar, P.E., S.E., M.ASCE, is a principal of KPFF Consulting Engineers and is based in the firm’s Portland, Oregon, office. Chris Tung, P.E., S.E., an associate with KPFF also based in the Portland office, served as the project manager for the courthouse.

Project Credits
Owner: General Services Administration
Architect: Morphosis, Santa Monica, California, and DLR Group,
Portland, Oregon
Structural engineer: KPFF Consulting Engineers, Portland, Oregon,
office
Construction: J.E. Dunn Construction Group, Portland, Oregon
Geotechnical consultant: West Coast Geotech, Inc., West Linn, Oregon
Civil engineer: KPFF Consulting Engineers, Portland, Oregon
Landscape architect: Richard Haag and Associates, Inc., Seattle
Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing consultants: Glumac International,
Portland, Oregon, and IBE Consulting Engineers, Sherman Oaks,
California