Courthouse design begins with a disciplined process of listening, testing assumptions, and aligning stakeholders around how the building must function. This process, commonly referred to as “space programming” or “program of requirements” development, establishes the framework for all subsequent design decisions.
In practice, the success of this effort is rarely about square footage alone. Over the course of many courthouse planning efforts, I’ve found that the real value lies in building momentum, developing a shared understanding of operations, and establishing trust among stakeholders who need to see their day-to-day realities reflected in the final courthouse design.
The process typically begins with a brief kickoff meeting that brings together all key stakeholders, including the judiciary, court administration, probation, prosecutor, public defender, clerks, court security, and facilities personnel. In my experience, this initial gathering often reveals as much about organizational dynamics as it does about space needs.
The intent is not to finalize detailed requirements, but to align participants around project goals, constraints, and known operational challenges. It also provides an opportunity to bring out recurring issues, such as security concerns, lack of separation between public and staff areas, or inefficiencies in circulation, that tend to shape the direction of the programming effort.
I’ve found that setting expectations at this stage is critical. When stakeholders understand that their input will be examined in depth during subsequent work sessions, the conversation becomes more focused and productive.
Following the kickoff, the work transitions into smaller, department-specific sessions. This is where the process begins to take shape in a meaningful way. In these settings, stakeholders are typically more candid about operational challenges and more willing to engage in detailed discussions about how their spaces function.
The most productive sessions are those that are structured and guided, rather than open-ended. I often rely on visual tools such as adjacency diagrams, precedent imagery, and sample layouts that show best practices to support these conversations. They help translate the space needs into something more concrete and allow stakeholders to react to real examples rather than abstract ideas. Even in jurisdictions with vastly different scales or resources, the issues are quite often similar for courts considering a new courthouse project, and these ideas help anchor the discussion.
Momentum builds as decisions are made incrementally. In my experience, leaving each session with clear, agreed-upon outcomes rather than a list of unresolved questions goes a long way toward reinforcing confidence in the process.
Staffing is one of the most significant drivers of space requirements and one of the areas most prone to assumptions. Early numbers provided by stakeholders are important, but they are rarely the full story.
In many projects, I’ve seen initial staffing discussions influenced by existing constraints, such as who fits where or how they have adapted over time, rather than what is truly needed to support operations. That’s why staff validation is such an important step.
Departments often approach these discussions through the lens of their current space, shaped by existing constraints, who fits where, and how they have adapted over time. While that perspective is understandable, it can limit the conversation. Our goal is to shift the focus toward what the operation truly needs to function effectively, without being bound by those constraints. This is not about pursuing unrealistic or pie in the sky solutions, but rather about avoiding the tendency to simply replicate existing compromises. Instead, we aim to define space requirements that support a properly functioning office aligned with operational needs.
To help ground that discussion, historical workload data provides an important counterbalance. Case volumes, transaction counts, and supervision levels offer a more objective measure of demand and often help reframe the conversation. In some instances, the data supports requests for growth; in others, it highlights opportunities to improve efficiency without expanding space.
I’ve found that when staffing is treated not as a fixed input but as something to be tested and understood, the conversation becomes much more productive. It also builds credibility with stakeholders, who can see that the process is grounded in both their experience and real data.
Clarity in programming is achieved by organizing discussions in a way that reflects how the courthouse operates. A reliable approach is to work from the public interface inward, beginning with arrival and circulation, and then moving into secure staff areas. I’ve seen this sequence resonate strongly with stakeholders, particularly in facilities where circulation and security have been long-standing concerns.
To maintain focus, discussions should be organized into defined zones and addressed sequentially:
Experience has shown that maintaining discipline within each zone is essential. Stakeholders often want to jump ahead to talk about conference rooms, storage, or what the building will look like, but working methodically through each category ensures that nothing is overlooked and that decisions are made with a full understanding of operational needs. This approach not only builds trust among stakeholders, it also helps the designer (when involved as part of the programming process) develop a clear understanding of the functional relationships within the space.
Stakeholder input is central to the programming process, but experience consistently shows that requests for things like conference rooms, storage, and specialized spaces can exceed what is operationally necessary.
Facilitating these types of conversations involves striking a balance. When this occurs, I try to direct the discussion towards translating these requests into practical, supportable solutions. This often involves introducing benchmarks from similar facilities, suggesting appropriate scales, and guiding conversation toward consensus.
Stakeholders need to feel heard, but they also benefit from a process that brings expertise, clarity, and resolution. In my experience, the most successful sessions are those where participants leave with decisions they can support, even if those decisions differ slightly from their initial expectations.
Capturing decisions as they are made is a critical part of keeping everyone on the same page. It reinforces progress and ensures that all participants share a clear understanding of what has been agreed upon.
Ultimately, these discussions are consolidated into a detailed draft space program that reflects the outcomes of the stakeholder sessions. The program documents square footage, adjacencies, and functional requirements across each department. However, the draft is not the end of the process. I often view it as a tool to further refine my understanding and continue building consensus.
A valuable next step is reconvening with each department to review the draft in detail. These follow-up meetings allow stakeholders to react to the program as a whole, confirm that their needs have been accurately captured, and identify any gaps or adjustments. In many cases, seeing their requirements documented in this way prompts more thoughtful feedback and a deeper level of engagement.
This iterative review process strengthens shared ownership across the project. It ensures that the final program is not only technically sound, but also broadly supported, reducing the likelihood of surprises as the project moves into design.
Over time, these refined and validated decisions form a comprehensive space program that serves as a reliable foundation for the courthouse design.
The completed space program serves as the basis for design, but its value extends beyond documentation. It reflects a process that has been deliberate, structured, and grounded in both stakeholder input and operational data.
Across multiple courthouse projects, one consistent outcome stands out: when programming is approached with clarity, discipline, and attention to validation—particularly around staffing—the resulting design process is more efficient and far more predictable.