In the process of designing and implementing a courthouse
intervention, one thing has stuck out to me: being considerate and respectful.
With every design and studio project assigned in school, the
parameters never have the ability to actually affect those using it, because
the projects have never been physically implemented or tested.
Having evaluated the existing conditions, uncovered the
problems, and proposed preliminary solutions, the project rapidly progresses
with our design thinking at the forefront. But is this really the best way to
continue?
What happens if we shift our focus to the user – not just
the general user, but the specific conditions and considerations we must take?
Rather than beginning with the possibilities, what if we look at the
limitations?
Our intervention looks at two major issues of the courthouse
– time and wayfinding. As court is a time-oriented procedure, the lack of
clocks and time in the spaces is astounding. With several different levels and
spaces throughout the building, the courthouse is missing clear wayfinding for
the user to understand how to get from point a to point b.
In the process of coming up with a solution and proposing a
design, we determined what we want our design to accomplish: the ability to see
the time from every floor along the atrium and simplifying the progression of
spaces in housing court.
These solutions immediately address the possibilities of our
design, but maybe our focus shifts to the limitations. These specific
limitations may include language barriers, visual impairments, as well as
cultural differences.
Clocks are generally universal. However, we are using a
digital clock to ensure that time is accessible by all – including those who do
not know how to read an analog clock. By placing this clock near the
information desk, it is visible from every level within the atrium space,
displacing any potential hierarchy of spaces and serving all of housing court
and beyond.
Our second production is undecided. With misunderstanding based
on two teams drawing the line between the two projects, how we are addressing the
issue of wayfinding and directional clarity is a work in progress. Many
discussions have led to various ideas and methods, but determining the most
effective way to achieve our goals and address the problem will require further
innovative design thinking.
As we move forward with our design, the product outcome will
become clear. This may be the result of comparing design possibilities,
limitations, and outcomes to define what best achieves our goals and meets the needs
of the user.