the denver justice center, denver...

The Denver Justice CenterDenver, ColoradoReview and Recommendation

April 12–16, 2004An Advisory Services Program Report

ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

An Advisory Services Program Report2

ULI–the Urban Land Institute is a non-profit research and education organiza-tion that promotes responsible leader-ship in the use of land in order to enhance

the total environment.

The Institute maintains a membership represent-ing a broad spectrum of interests and sponsors awide variety of educational programs and forumsto encourage an open exchange of ideas and shar-ing of experience. ULI initiates research thatanticipates emerging land use trends and issuesand proposes creative solutions based on thatresearch; provides advisory services; and pub-lishes a wide variety of materials to disseminateinformation on land use and development.

Established in 1936, the Institute today has morethan 20,000 members and associates from 70 coun-tries, representing the entire spectrum of the landuse and development disciplines. Professionals rep-resented include developers, builders, propertyowners, investors, architects, public officials, plan-ners, real estate brokers, appraisers, attorneys,

engineers, financiers, academics, students, andlibrarians. ULI relies heavily on the experience ofits members. It is through member involvementand information resources that ULI has been ableto set standards of excellence in developmentpractice. The Institute has long been recognizedas one of America’s most respected and widelyquoted sources of objective information on urbanplanning, growth, and development.

This Advisory Services program report is intendedto further the objectives of the Institute and tomake authoritative information generally avail-able to those seeking knowledge in the field ofurban land use.

Richard M. RosanPresident

About ULI–the Urban Land Institute

©2004 by ULI–the Urban Land Institute andThe City and County of Denver

All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or anypart of the contents without written permission from thecopyright holders is prohibited.

ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

Denver, Colorado, April 12–16, 2004 3

The goal of ULI’s Advisory Services Programis to bring the finest expertise in the realestate field to bear on complex land use plan-ning and development projects, programs,

and policies. Since 1947, this program has assem-bled well over 400 ULI-member teams to helpsponsors find creative, practical solutions forissues such as downtown redevelopment, landmanagement strategies, evaluation of develop-ment potential, growth management, communityrevitalization, brownfields redevelopment, militarybase reuse, provision of low-cost and affordablehousing, and asset management strategies, amongother matters. A wide variety of public, private,and nonprofit organizations have contracted forULI’s Advisory Services.

Each panel team is composed of highly qualifiedprofessionals who volunteer their time to ULI.They are chosen for their knowledge of the paneltopic and screened to ensure their objectivity. ULIpanel teams are interdisciplinary and are devel-oped based on the specific scope of the assignment.ULI teams provide a holistic look at developmentproblems. Each panel is chaired by a respectedULI member with previous panel experience.

The agenda for a panel assignment is intensive. Itincludes an in-depth briefing composed of a tourof the site and meetings with sponsor representa-tives; interviews of key people within the commu-nity; and a day of formulating recommendations.On the final day on site, the panel makes an oralpresentation of its findings and conclusions to thesponsor. At the request of the sponsor, a writtenreport is prepared and published.

Because the sponsoring entities are responsiblefor significant preparation before the panel’s visit,including sending extensive briefing materials toeach member and arranging for the panel to meetwith key local community members and stake-holders in the project under consideration, partic-ipants in ULI’s panel assignments are able tomake accurate assessments of a sponsor’s issuesand to provide recommendations in a compressedamount of time.

A major strength of the program is ULI’s uniqueability to draw on the knowledge and expertise ofits members, including land developers and own-ers, public officials, academicians, representativesof financial institutions, and others. In fulfillmentof the mission of the Urban Land Institute, thisAdvisory Services program report is intended toprovide objective advice that will promote the re-sponsible use of land to enhance the environment.

ULI Program StaffRachelle L. LevittExecutive Vice President, Policy and Practice

Mary Beth CorriganVice President, Advisory Services

Nancy Zivitz SussmanSenior Associate, Advisory Services

Nicholas GabelAssociate, Advisory Services

Jason BellPanel Coordinator, Advisory Services

Yvonne StantonAdministrative Assistant

Nancy H. StewartDirector, Book Program

Duke JohnsManuscript Editor

Betsy VanBuskirkArt Director

Martha LoomisDesktop Publishing Specialist/Graphics

Diann Stanley-AustinDirector, Publishing Operations

About ULI Advisory Services


The ULI panel would like to extend its spe-cial thanks to Mayor John Hickenlooper,who was generous with his time and pro-vided valuable insight into the current at-

mosphere for development of the justice centerproject. The panel particularly appreciates themayor’s confidence in the ULI Advisory Servicespanel process. In addition, the panel would liketo thank the Denver City Council members andChief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who spent consid-erable time meeting with the group.

Judges Raymond Satter, the presiding judge of theDenver County Court, and Jeffrey Bayless, chiefjudge of the Denver District Court, together withMatt McConville, court administrator, guided thepanel in its tour of the City and County Buildingand allowed the group to view all areas of the court-house. Their counterparts for the jail facilities,Undersheriff Fred Oliva and Chief Bill Lovingierand members of their staffs, provided extensiveguided tours of the jail facilities both within thecourthouse and at the Stapleton facility. The panelgained significant insights from touring both thecourt and jail facilities. City staffers were particu-larly helpful, and the panel found benefit in meet-ing with Peter Park, the new manager of commu-nity planning and development.

The panel appreciated the briefing regarding pre-vious development proposals that was providedby the Reilly Johnson architecture team andAdrian Brown with Citizens for a Better Denver(CBD). During its stay in Denver, the panel alsohad an opportunity to meet with many businessand neighborhood groups, including representa-tives from the Golden Triangle Association, theGolden Triangle Arts District, and the StapletonDevelopment Corporation team.

The panel extends special thanks to Beth Conover,special assistant to the mayor, who handled ar-rangements for the ULI panel and assistedthroughout the week. Kurt Schumacher was alsoinstrumental in assembling the briefing materialsand providing additional assistance. ULI staffappreciates the work that went into preparingfor the panel and assisting the group while onsite. The panel hopes its efforts will prove fruit-ful to the mayor and the city of Denver.

Acknowledgments


ULI Panel and Project Staff 6

Introduction and Overview of Recommendations 7

Planning and Design Considerations 11

Neighborhood Impact and Market Potential 19

Development Strategies 21

Implementation 24

Conclusion 26

About the Panel 27

Appendix 30

Design Addendum 32

Technology Addendum 35

Contents


Panel ChairRichard (Rick) J. Dishnica, ChairPresidentThe Dishnica Company, LLCPoint Richmond, California

Panel MembersDiana GonzalezHomestead Reuse Plan CoordinatorMiami–Dade CountySouth Miami, Florida

Don HardenberghPresidentCourt WorksWilliamsburg, Virginia

Paula K. KonikoffBoard MemberAppraisal Standards BoardNew York, New York

Todd S. Phillips, AIATodd S. Phillips + AssociatesSilver Spring, Maryland

ULI Project DirectorNancy Zivitz SussmanSenior Associate, Advisory Services

ULI Panel and Project Staff


The ULI panel believes that immediate de-velopment of the justice center project is inDenver’s public interest. After it toured theexisting facilities, the panel concluded that

conditions cannot remain “as is.” The city has theability to provide a safe place where people wantto live, work, and play, and the panel believes it isthe city’s responsibility to ensure such an environ-ment. Public facilities—especially the City andCounty Building, situated prominently along thecentral civic space across from the state capitol—should serve as symbols of public pride. Given thedire physical circumstances of the existing court-house and associated jail, the panel believes thatDenver’s quality of life is at stake.

The AssignmentRecognizing these conditions, the panel assessedthe issues involved in the current debate aboutwhere and how to locate needed improvements.City leaders believe that an opportunity exists toimprove both the courts and the jails through thedevelopment of a justice center that would com-bine both facilities in one complex. This idea hasevolved over time. During the 2001 general elec-tion, Denver citizens rejected a $325 million bondissue for an all-inclusive jail facility, four arraign-ment courtrooms, and parking development atwhat is commonly referred to as the Sears site atSixth Avenue and I-25. While that 17-acre sitewould have allowed for a combination of new jailfacilities and a few arraignment courtrooms, theneed to address overcrowded district, juvenile,and county courtroom conditions at the City andCounty Building downtown has also emerged as a high-priority problem.

These combined needs have led to a proposal for ajustice center that would combine a downtown jailand court complex. Thus, the criteria for a new fa-cility have changed, and the city now seeks a newpretrial detention facility as well as 32 criminal

and 11 juvenile courtrooms. Alternatively, thecity could renovate existing detention facilities inoutlying areas and build a new stand-alone courtfacility downtown. It should be noted that in thelast election, following defeat of the bond issue, anew mayor and 11 out of 13 new council memberswere elected.

In 2002, the city had an opportunity to purchasethe Rocky Mountain News building on a five-acresite in close proximity to the existing City andCounty Building. This site, viewed as a prospec-tive location for a justice center facility, has theadvantage of being located within the downtownlegal community and near the existing courts.The acquisition of this site led Mayor John Hick-enlooper, who took office in July 2003, to seek anindependent review that, in turn, led to this ULIpanel. The panel was asked to help determine acost-effective solution to the overcrowded jailand court facilities that have plagued Denver forover a decade.

The panel was presented with two proposed solu-tions: one prepared by the Reilly Johnson archi-tectural team and the other advocated by Citi-zens for a Better Denver (CBD), represented byAdrian Brown, a local civil engineer. The panelwas also told that an acceptable third conclusionwould be that neither proposal was sufficient toaddress the city’s needs (implying the need toidentify a new site altogether). Specifically, thepanel was asked which site concept would makethe most sense in terms of cost/benefit, long-termgrowth potential, land use context, public and em-ployee safety, and long-term operating costs. Thethree alternatives can be summarized as follows:

• build a new justice center complex incorporat-ing prearraignment and the existing pretrialdetention facilities (PADF) and a full courtscomplex at the Rocky Mountain News (RMN)site; retain modified posttrial detention facilityat Smith Road (Reilly Johnson plan);

Introduction and Overview ofRecommendations


• renovate existing facilities at Smith Roadcounty jail and downtown PADF/city jail andbuild a new courts complex downtown (CBDplan); or

• none of the above; seek an unidentified thirdsite within ten miles of downtown.

The RecommendationThe panel believes that the city should proceedimmediately with plans for building a new justicecenter downtown and should use the RMN site toprovide a portion of the necessary developmentarea. A potential bond issue that would fund therecommended design solution should be presentedto the voters as a ballot question in May 2005.

Toward this end, the panel strongly suggests thatthe mayor and city council establish a civic leader-ship team with the necessary technical staff re-sources. It is the mayor whom the panel stronglyendorses to lead this effort and to champion thenew justice center.

Regardless of cost, staffing needs, time, and po-tential impact on the initiation and completion ofother projects, this project should be the city’stop public works priority.

A number of components are incorporated inthe panel’s recommended solution. Developmentshould include not only the RMN site. The cityshould also consider acquisition of additional landimmediately west of RMN. More land will allowfor an optimal development of two separate build-ings: one for the criminal courts and one for short-term detention including juvenile detention, witha connection between the two via an undergroundtunnel. The panel also recommends that GeneAmole Way be closed to traffic and developed asan open green space. Not only would this providenew pedestrian open space, but it also would serveto extend the green space of the Civic Center fur-ther to the west.

The City and County Building should be convertedfor use by the civil courts, with sufficient spacefor the offices of the mayor and the city council to-gether with any allied support space deemed ap-propriate. The parking structure recommended by

Reilly Johnson should be included in the develop-ment plan and located due south of the RMN site.The PADF should be converted to alternative(nondetention) city uses.

Equally important, the panel proposes that theSmith Road jail be converted for long-term deten-tion only. Its renovation should be undertaken si-multaneously with the implementation of modifi-cations to the downtown site. Future demand forlong-term detention could then be accommodatedat Smith Road.

This course of action will lead to an attractive andsafe justice center complex, and can also serve asan asset to the city’s Civic Center. The new Den-ver Justice Center should be designed as an ex-tension of the existing civic space. Further, thepanel encourages the development as a potentialeconomic benefit to the adjoining downtown andGolden Triangle neighborhood. With a revised cir-culation plan and improved streetscape, the jus-tice center complex will serve many visitors andemployees who in turn may choose to spend addi-tional time in the area.

The justice center thus offers an opportunity tofocus on the public interest and to ensure a promi-nent place of pride for the citizens of Denver. Thisproject should foster additional private develop-ment that will help to physically unite the adja-cent neighborhoods. The justice center, compati-ble with civic and public use, is ideally sited in thecity’s downtown and should spark additional eco-nomic development.

Understanding the ProblemThe panel toured the City and County Buildingand the detention facilities at the Smith Road fa-cility near Stapleton and found the conditions tobe appalling. The panel was disappointed thatDenver’s civic leaders and citizens have allowedtheir criminal justice system to deteriorate to itspresent level. The leadership and populace mustwork together responsibly to reverse the dismalconditions prevalent in the city’s courts and jails.Continued neglect will place courthouse visitorsand jurors in danger and threaten the constitu-tional rights of accused perpetrators, both adultand juvenile.


Denver’s horribly overcrowded jail conditions cur-rently serve to harden the attitudes of those incar-cerated, thus negating the very concept of “cor-rection.” The PADF’s cells are routinely doublebunked; this facility, designed for intake of 17,000persons annually, now handles about 44,000 per-sons. The Denver County Jail operates at over 140percent of capacity as well; rated for 1,350 inmates,it regularly houses over 1,900 inmates.

The situation is equally deficient for the districtand county courts. The city has to lease space toovercome a shortage of courtrooms. The separa-tion of potentially dangerous prisoners from thepublic, judicial staff, and victims is not possibleowing to inadequate space. Holding cells are lo-cated directly across from the city council’s cham-bers, and hallways are shared by prisoners andthe public alike.

With significant population increases forecast forthe region, the number of people who will requireincarceration can be expected to rise, according tothe Denver Region Council of Governments. Thecity needs to plan today to accommodate tomor-row’s even larger incarcerated population.

Working together, Denver’s leaders and citizenscan create justice facilities that will promote andprotect rather than endanger public safety. Newfacilities can maintain the vitality of the neighbor-hoods in which they are located and enhance thequality of life. These are the benefits generallyexperienced through revitalization that respectsand enhances existing conditions. This is an op-portunity to elevate the justice system so that itsupports the community and promotes economicdevelopment.

New court and short-term detention facilities canenhance the Civic Center area and vastly improvethe quality of life of both those entering the crimi-nal justice system and those who work in that sys-tem. New court facilities located near the short-term detention facility would eliminate the needfor those who visit the courthouse—for reasonsthat range from paying a parking ticket to servingin a jury pool—to spend time in overcrowded hall-ways that require the families of victims to sharespace with accused criminal in shackles.

New facilities would drastically reduce detaineetransport. The proximity and design of the two fa-cilities, as recommended by the panel, would elim-inate the need for “blue buses” and other policeand sheriff’s department vehicles to be parked onpublic streets, for juvenile defendants to stand inlong lines outside the courthouse, and for prison-ers to walk through public areas both outsideand inside the courthouse. Substandard condi-tions for those who work in the courthouse wouldalso be alleviated with the addition of a new crimi-nal courthouse. Currently, the average detaineemakes up to eight trips to court between arraign-ment and sentencing, and an average of 250 de-tainees are transported downtown daily on theblue buses.

A new justice center in the downtown will encour-age additional private development. The combinedbenefits of improved court and detention facilitiescan and should encourage economic growth andmake the criminal justice system a good neighborin a growing area that has a strong heritage ofhousing government functions. Across Colfax Av-enue, the northern boundary of the proposed jus-tice center, is the downtown commercial district.To the south of the courts and across 14th Ave-nue lies the Golden Triangle neighborhood. Thismixed-use residential neighborhood, sensitive tothe needs of the greater community, deservesan adjacency to facilities that are both safe andwell designed.

The Need for Project ChampionsThe panel arrived in Denver expecting to confronta location and design problem, but instead it founda historic leadership and political problem. Pastbond election failures had resulted in an unhealthystasis regarding the conditions in the jails andcourts. The new civic leadership must vigorouslyembrace the justice center project if there is to beany hope for success in a future bond election.

The first step needed is the identification of achampion—a mobilizing individual who can leadefforts to address and solve this systemic prob-lem. The panel recommends Mayor Hickenlooperto be this champion. He can easily appoint a smalltask force of high-profile, community representa-tives that can spearhead change.


Honoring CommitmentsIt is essential that the city government honor itscommitment to Denver’s residents by deliveringwhat is promised. The public rightfully expectssafety and high standards of human rights. Basedon a clearly articulated program for space and use,it is imperative to clearly define what is intendedand follow through with what is promised untilcompletion. This obligation includes fulfilling thevision and maintaining the quality of services thatthe public has a right to expect. The process mustbe expeditious and funded by a realistic budgetthat anticipates future cost increases.

Projects that are approved and then not com-pleted as specified only serve to widen the gapbetween the population and its leadership, andto dampen the interest of voters when they arecalled upon to approve publicly funded develop-ment in the future. Sufficient funds with adequatecontingencies must be budgeted in a bond issue toproduce what is planned.

A commitment must be made to Denver’s citizensin general and especially to the Golden Triangleneighbors, who must enfold the new court and de-tention facilities into the fabric of their everydaylives. Conversely, the neighbors and citizens mustalso make a commitment to the government tosupport a project that has made a good-faith effortto involve them in the process and to address theirconcerns. Once a decision is made, the public offi-cials need community support. The panel viewsthis project as a long-range endeavor that shouldproduce solutions effective for up to 50 years orbeyond. A 20-year plan is too short-sighted, giventhe tremendous needs and the fact that the popu-lation will only increase over time, creating evengreater demands on the justice system.

The champions in recent years have been Under-sheriff Oliva and his staff, who have done an ex-traordinary job in holding the city’s criminal jus-tice system together sufficiently to avoid whatwould otherwise have invited a lawsuit related tosevere jail overcrowding. Despite their deep dis-appointment over the results of the last election,in which the citizens of Denver rejected the pro-posed development of new jail facilities at theSears site, Undersheriff Oliva and his staff havecommitted themselves to maintaining the existingdetention facilities in the best condition possible,given the size of the populations they house. How-ever, continued excessive reliance on justice sys-tem employees is inappropriate. It is evident thatthe sheriff and his staff understand the depth ofthe problems and support a new development plan.

Judges Satter and Bayless and their staffs havealso supported the current proposal for a down-town justice center, doing what they can to edu-cate civic leaders about the potentially explosiveconditions at the courthouse. To expose the publicin this building not only to the spectacle of prison-ers in shackles, but also to potentially dangeroussituations, should be unacceptable to the publicand to the city’s employees. The panel admiresthe fortitude shown by the legal community andcorrection officers in working within this difficultenvironment. It is a situation that can only breedfurther support for change and demands for im-provements. The panel believes that if the widerpublic is made more fully aware of these conditions,there will be broader support for the next bondissue requesting funds for a new justice center.

The sheriff’s office and the judiciary should not andcannot champion this sorely needed project ontheir own. They should devote their time to per-forming their duties. The new champion—MayorHickenlooper—needs to launch a concerted publicawareness effort now that aims at the electionin May 2005 and beyond, until the bond issue ispassed and the new justice center can be built.

The panel believes that nothing short of new crim-inal court and short-term detention facilities, sitedwithin close proximity of one another to providethe security features so sadly lacking today, is nec-essary to begin to address the systemic problemthat now exists.


The jail and the courts represent two ele-ments of a complex system that is notmonolithic and instead requires both seg-ments to work closely together. At present,

Denver’s criminal justice system is dysfunctional,resulting in a dangerous environment for bothcitizens and inmates. The jail is alarmingly over-crowded and does not meet basic standards, norare the criminal courts’ operations supported by a facility that meets today’s standards, despitethe best and most cooperative efforts of all theprofessionals involved. The shortcomings of thecity’s physical infrastructure of justice must beaddressed now.

The panel aimed to advise the city on how to cre-ate a functional system: one that works at severallevels. The system must address the immediatepracticalities facing the sheriffs, judges, and jus-tice system employees. To communicate a level ofsafety and trust, the system must succeed as wellat the level of engendering and sustaining publictrust, compliance, and confidence in the justicesystem. The overall solution also needs to reachbeyond functionality in the narrow sense and ad-dress some powerful intangibles. Whether expe-rienced directly in the course of participating inlitigation or other legal business, or simply as animage seen through a windshield as one drives by,the new justice center needs to project a sense ofopenness, balance, clarity, and fairness for all.

The jail has to work properly. The basic conditionsof confinement need to meet or exceed current min-imum standards, and there must be a way to holdand transport detainees of different classificationsand lengths of stay. Similarly, the criminal courtoperations need to be supported by adequatespaces and controlled circulation systems that en-sure the safety of everyone—persons in custody,judges and court staff, jurors, and citizens in gen-eral. These two otherwise distinct operations and

facilities need to be developed in a way that en-sures optimal interaction between them.

The Context for the ProjectThe proposed justice center project has at leastthree major dimensions. The physical context isits existing urban fabric. The physical heart ofDenver is the axial beaux arts civic plan that fea-tures, like bookends, the state capitol buildingwith its gold dome at one end and the crescent-shaped City and County Building at the other. Thelong landscaped plaza in between has two match-ing elements on its flanks that signal the pointswhere cross-circulation occurs. Both topographi-cally and symbolically, the capitol building occu-pies the city’s “highest ground” and can be consid-ered the crown jewel of its public architecture.

On the southern side of the civic plaza lies an ex-panding cluster of cultural facilities, including the1995 Denver Public Library designed by MichaelGraves, the 1971 Denver Art Museum by GioPonti, with its Daniel Libeskind addition currentlyunder construction, the Webb Municipal Buildingby David Tryba, and the Denver Convention Cen-ter, also under construction, by Fentress Brad-burn Architects.

The city’s commercial office core is located justnorth of Colfax Avenue and features compara-tively dense high-rise buildings on a diagonalstreet grid. Mixed among the newer tall buildingsare numerous older ones, some quite distinguishedarchitecturally, that have been rehabilitated andkept in use.

The mixed-use areas of the lower downtown(LoDo) and Larimer Square are situated fartherto the northwest. These areas represent the city’semerging neighborhoods and are characteristic ofthe downtown mixed-use neighborhoods being de-veloped nationwide. Immediately south of ColfaxAvenue, which is the northern boundary of the

Planning and Design Considerations


Golden Triangle neighborhood, lie the culturalbuildings that edge the Civic Center (the art mu-seum, the public library, and the Colorado StateJudicial Building). The Golden Triangle, anotheremerging mixed-use residential neighborhood,will be the area most affected by the new justicecenter, and its residents and business owners areunderstandably most concerned with the impactof potential development.

Beyond the downtown are various outlying neigh-borhoods. Particularly noteworthy is the growthof Stapleton: a 4,700-acre planned community lo-cated on the site of the former airport about sixmiles northeast of the city, it is the largest urbaninfill project in the nation. The Smith Road deten-tion facility is situated due east of this communityand is separated from it by significant topographi-cal features. The panel concurs with previous rec-ommendations for the continuation and modifica-tion of this long-term detention facility. The panelbelieves it can be improved so as not to negativelyaffect nearby development activity.

In addition to the physical context, the projectmust take into account its temporal context: thepatterns of past, present, and future development.Again, the panel stresses the compelling needto act now: the current situation is a time bombwaiting to detonate, not only because of the over-crowded conditions at the jail but also owing tothe similar situation in the City and County Build-ing. Otherwise someone, somewhere, is going toget hurt. The absence of a modern criminal courtscirculation system suggests that a random, spon-taneous outbreak of violence could easily occur atany moment somewhere in the public space.

The justice center’s design should draw on thecity’s beaux arts heritage exemplified by theCivic Center and the surrounding buildings thatdate from the City Beautiful movement a centuryago and refined at various times in succeedingyears. The recommendation to close Gene AmoleWay, for example, would build on this heritageand vision by creating a pedestrian space thatextends the green open space of the civic areafarther west.

As with Denver’s beaux arts buildings, the justicecenter should be viewed as a legacy project with

far-reaching, long lasting implications for futureresidents. It needs to capture the city’s civic spiritand serve as a catalyst for continued high-qualitydesign—a tradition currently being upheld by theforthcoming Libeskind addition to the museumand Fentress Bradburn’s new convention center.To ensure continued excellence, neighborhood as-sociations, plans, and various public initiativesmust follow an agenda that preserves and extendsthe quality of the city’s Civic Center.

What’s at StakeThe answer to the question “what’s at stake?” isthe public interest, reflected in the ability of Den-ver to continue to be a place where people want tolive and work and where people can take pride intheir physical environment. It is the future ofDenver that is at stake. Thus, it is crucial that thecity avoids the danger of an ad hoc, fragmented,and divisive quick-fix solution to its courts’ andjails’ space needs.

In case after case, communities that have re-sorted to piecemeal, barrackslike, lean-and-meandetention solutions have created case studies infalse economies that come back to haunt them.In other words, it is far too easy to do it badly.Denver must avoid falling into the traps of insuf-ficient information or failures of imagination andpolitical will. It must recognize the necessity toclarify, refine, and implement a truly successfulsolution to a problem that is everybody’s issue inone way or another.

The OpportunityDenver has an opportunity to develop a solutionthat contributes to rather than compromises theoverall community interest; that supports, notsubverts, what leaders are trying to achieve intheir respective neighborhoods. The new justicecenter must provide state-of-the-art facilities thatachieve true fitness for both detention and courtneeds and, by extension, for the justice systemas a whole. This project should foster quality de-velopment throughout Denver and help to fur-ther knit, not separate, its neighborhoods, zones,and citizens.

The justice center offers an opportunity to con-tribute to further community growth by providinga solution that enhances and extends the original


Civic Center farther west toward Speer Boule-vard, while simultaneously providing an attractivelinkage between the downtown core north of Col-fax Avenue and the cultural and Golden Triangleareas south of 14th Avenue. The center can helpintegrate these two major areas of downtownDenver in a mutually complementary way.

The panel notes that the presence of a well-conceived and attractive justice center—one thatimproves the functionality of the justice systemwhile also serving as an exemplary civic icon—can contribute to the general environment andconditions that future development requires. Itcan help create a place where people will investtheir resources and aspirations. (Refer to theDesign Addendum for examples.)

History and Prior StudiesThe current planning process for the justice cen-ter has taken place within the context of a longhistory of community, economic, and land useplanning going back to the City Beautiful Plan of1904 and the Greening Plan of 1924 through to thepresent day. Planning for criminal justice and de-tention facilities and operations also has a sub-stantial history, beginning with Pouw and Associ-ates’ City and County of Denver Facility MasterPlan of 1986.

Here is a list of the major general planning initia-tives that have influenced development in Denver:

• City Beautiful Plan, 1904;

• Greening Plan, 1924;

• Central Business District / B-5 Design Guide-lines, 1995;

• Central Denver Transportation Study, 1998;

• Golden Triangle Neighborhood Plan, 1998;

• Silver Triangle Urban Design Study, 1999;

• Denver Comprehensive Plan, 2000;

• B-8-G Design Guidelines, 2002;

• Blueprint Denver: An Integrated Land Use andTransportation Plan, 2002; and

• Game Plan Parks Master Plan, 2003.

The following justice planning initiatives have alsooccurred:

• City and County of Denver Facility MasterPlan, 1986;

• Pre-Arraignment Detention Facility Expansionand Remodel, 1992;

• Denver County Jail Plan, 1995;

• RNL Inmate Daily Population Projections,1996;

• Denver County Jail Master Plan, 1999;

• Denver Justice Center—Sears Site, 2001;

• Denver Justice Center—I-70 and Quebec Site,2001;

• Denver Justice Center Master Plan, 2003; and

• Denver Justice Center—Downtown Courts,PADF Remodel, Smith Road Redevelopment,2003.

Hallmarks of Excellence in JusticeProject DesignGood planning and design promote the role of ourcourts and judiciary in society, enhance publictrust and confidence in our courts and justice sys-tem, and improve operational efficiency and effec-tiveness. The courts are governed by planningand design guidelines formulated by the ColoradoJudicial Department (the Colorado Court Facil-ity Planning and Design Guidelines). Jails anddetention facilities are governed by the Ameri-can Correctional Association (ACA) Standards.The following discussion summarizes the hall-marks of justice center design excellence andshould serve as a guide for the city in reviewingdesign proposals.

The CourtsThe panel focused on certain major issues associ-ated with courthouse design. These prime consid-erations include the image that can be establishedthrough good design and how the facility fits intoits surroundings.


Image and contextual compatibility. The ColoradoCourt Facility Planning and Design Guidelinesstate that the courthouse is a powerful placewithin the community and that architectural ele-ments should reflect the spirit and dignity of thejudiciary, enhance the spirit of the community, andreinforce the courthouse’s image as the focal pointof our justice system. Image sets the mood andtone for the activities that take place within thecourthouse; the building should project a formaland dignified atmosphere that enhances decorumand respect for the law.

It is important that the courts be located in anarea that is compatible with civic and public useand where the nature of the justice operations andspecial security measures will not conflict with thesurrounding community. The Colorado Court Fa-cility guidelines state that the best location is onethat is already being used for civic purposes.Downtown commercial and business areas are alsoappropriate for court facilities. The panel’s recom-mendation to expand and renovate the justice fa-cilities within the Civic Center area complies withthese considerations.

The site should be large enough not only to accom-modate current needs but also to allow for ex-pected future growth and change. Courts willgrow in case volume, and changes in jurisdictions,procedures, and polices may involve differences inthe types of services provided, the way servicesare provided (see the Technology Addendum), andthe number of staff required. Any site under seri-ous consideration should be flexible enough to ac-commodate unforeseen system changes that mayrequire additional or reconfigured space.

Accessibility considerations. All courts should beprogrammatically, as well as physically, accessibleto the public. Physical accessibility requires easyaccess by roads or public transportation, adequateparking, unambiguous signage and directions, andlocation in a safe area near major population cen-ters. In other words, considerations for public ac-cess far exceed American Disabilities Act (ADA)requirements and the mere ease of getting tobuildings and parking. The economics and politicsof providing parking, for example, must be thor-oughly explored; they may have a decisive influ-ence in choosing between a rural or urban site.

The panel is aware of the current community de-bate regarding the development of a comprehen-sive justice center located somewhat remotely, soas not to negatively impact its surroundings, ver-sus the development options associated with theRocky Mountain News site downtown and the fa-cility on Smith Road. The deciding locational fac-tors should be the jurisdiction of the court andthe nature of the area to be served. The site thatis most accessible to the maximum number of peo-ple has advantages that are not easily ignored.Travel time by automobile is as good a measureof accessibility as can be found; it is more mean-ingful than population center, commercial devel-opment, or distance.

The high cost of land acquisition in an urban areais often warranted by virtue of the city’s role as afocal point in the highway and mass transporta-tion network and by its concentration of law of-fices. Based on case studies of other justice cen-ters and the dynamics of urban real estate ingeneral, the panel believes that expansion of thefacilities downtown is most appropriate and willbe more convenient for most users. As mentionedearlier, the panel also believes that expansion ofthe Civic Center will ultimately lead to additionaleconomic development in the neighboring areas.

More specifically, access to private attorneys, theprosecutor’s office, and the public defender needsto be considered. Excessive travel time betweenthe courts and these offices would mean lost time,higher fees and operating costs, and reduced pro-ductivity. The location of the court should not, ofcourse, be determined by the convenience for at-torneys at the expense of other public users. Inthis case, however, the panel believes the down-town site will better serve most users.

Sufficient parking is essential. State judicial stan-dards require a minimum of four parking spacesfor every 1,000 gross square feet of building space.Most people drive to court and become frustratedat not being able to park after arriving on time.The site should be approached easily by road.Crowded and narrow street approaches shouldbe avoided, since the increased traffic created bycourt business would only make the situationworse. These considerations appear to have beenincorporated in all the development proposals, but


the city should be vigilant in its review of parkingand circulation issues. It is important to considerthat demand for parking also comes from jurors,who certainly can increase the demand for spaces.Access to the court for the poor, the elderly, andother segments of the population without cars alsomust be considered. While most people drive,there are many who must rely on public or otherforms of transportation. Fortunately, the RockyMountain News site enjoys good access by publictransportation due to its proximity to downtown.Available modes of transport include bus, lightrail, and a proposed downtown circulator.

In terms of internal circulation, a typical courtcross section generally shows the separation ofpublic and private space both vertically and hori-zontally. Private functions are often located in theback of the building, with office space for judgesand staff in the rear. Prisoners generally circulatethrough the basement level and then vertically tothe courtrooms without mixing with the public.Tunnels offer another particularly effective way to separate prisoners from the general public.

Jails and Detention FacilitiesWorking with the sheriff’s office, planners for thenew justice center need to be cognizant of deten-tion program requirements and key operationaland organizational concepts related to detention.These requirements specify the classification andseparation of prisoners and a variety of alterna-tive supervision methods such as direct, indirect,and intermittent. Prisoner services and programscan be both centralized and decentralized. Manytypes of spaces, as listed below, should be incorpo-rated into the facility and will be key to efficientdesign:

• central control;

• intake/transfer/release;

• housing (single and multioccupant);

• inmate services (food, laundry, medical, mentalhealth);

• inmate programs (religious, educational, law li-brary, recreational, counseling, passive recre-ation);

• visitation (none, limited, full-contact); and

• administrative and support areas.

An important criterion when reviewing the designfor these facilities should be consideration for thestaff as well as the prison population. Building de-sign must serve the staff in its efforts to controlhousing and related services for the prisoners andto implement the programs for intake, transfer,and release.

Experience shows that inhuman environmentscan induce inhumane behavior. Conditions of con-finement that work only at the lowest possiblethreshold are counterproductive. If conditionsreach the point where they incite bad behavior,the institution will have to spend more, not less,money dealing with it. It will have also failed tomeet its rehabilitative objectives. Most wouldagree that the Denver justice system has alreadydeclined to a marginal level of service and needsto immediately reverse its downward trajectory.

Planning RecommendationsThe Denver Justice Center Master Plan focuseson the Denver civic areas bounded by BannockStreet on the east and Gene Amole Way and ElatiStreet on the west, and by 13th Avenue on thesouth and Colfax Avenue on the north. The panelrecommends that the justice center master plan-ning area be expanded to include the blocks westof Gene Amole Way to Speer Boulevard.

Alternative I as ProposedThe Denver Justice Center (DJC) Master Planprovides design and site criteria for the (1) crimi-nal courts (district and county courts), (2) pre-sentence detention center (PADF); (3) juvenilecourts; and (4) parking facility. The criminal courtsand detention center are located in a single seven-story structure (including basement and subbase-ment) to be built on the site of the current RockyMountain News (RMN) building. The criminalcourts would occupy the site’s north half and in-clude 30 courtrooms, court-related offices and ju-dicial chambers, and jury assembly space. The de-tention center would occupy the site’s south endand house intake processing (which would be relo-cated from the PDAF) and a 1,500-bed pretrial de-


tention center. A juvenile courthouse would re-place the juvenile courtrooms now in the City andCounty Building. To be located adjacent to thePADF, the building would include 12 courtroomsand court-related offices. A 500-space parkingstructure for the public and staff is planned forthe north end of the block, immediately south ofthe present RMN building.

The Panel’s Proposed PlanThe panel recommends the continued location ofthe criminal courts and allied agencies and func-tions within the Denver Civic Center area. Thedistinguishing feature of the recommended solu-

tion is its “unbundled” approach to the detentionand courts components. The panel’s proposed cen-ter would consist of two stand-alone buildings thatwould be connected below grade by secure circula-tion and would share a pedestrians-only plaza inbetween at the sidewalk level.

To accomplish this, the panel proposes that thecity purchase the properties on the block imme-diately to the west of the RMN building and that a stand-alone criminal courts building containing a minimum of 30 courtrooms, judicial chambers,and court-related offices and jury space be con-structed on the RMN block. Note that the pro-gram is the same for both schemes (1,500 beds,at least 30 criminal courtrooms, and 12 juvenilecourtrooms).

The presentence detention center, previously tobe located on the same block with the criminalcourts, would be separated from the courts and lo-cated on the block immediately to the west. GeneAmole Way would be closed to vehicular traffic toprovide for a pedestrian walkway/plaza space. Anunderground tunnel would connect the two build-ings. The juvenile courts building would occupythe block with the detention center as a separate,detached building with a separate entrance.

This recommended solution achieves numerousgoals at once. Instead of a single, large, boxlikevolume that covers most of the site, and that risksblurring the architectural identity of the courts asthe independent third branch of government, theunbundled approach makes it possible to developmore appropriate scale, massing, and imagery foreach justice component. In so doing, the solutionas a whole respects the hierarchy, volumetric andsymbolic, of buildings in and adjacent to the origi-nal civic core. As the core is extended by the jus-tice center to the west, between Colfax and 14thavenues, a natural progression would be main-tained by the new courthouse across the streetfrom the U.S. Mint and the new detention facilityacross the street from the courthouse.

In addition, the removal of the criminal courtsfrom the City and County Building would providethe opportunity to renovate the City and CountyBuilding and to move the civil and domestic courtsout of the Adams Mark Hotel (where six court-

Alternative I as proposed.

JuvenileCourts

Colfax Avenue

14th Avenue

Bann

ock S

tree

t

Cher

okee

Str

eet

Delaw

are S

tree

t

Elat

i Str

eet

Gene

Am

ole W

ay

Rocky Mountain Newsbuilding site

CourtU.S.Mint

Jail

City andCountyBuiilding

ParkingGarage

JuvenileCourts

Fox S

tree

t

Buildings(existing andproposed)

Parcels

Proposed development parcels

ULI panel’s proposedplan.

Colfax Avenue

14th Avenue

Bann

ock S

tree

t

Cher

okee

Str

eet

Delaw

are S

tree

t

Elat

i Str

eet

Gen

e Am

ole

Plaz

a

Rocky Mountain Newsbuilding site

CourtU.S.MintJail

City andCountyBuiilding

ParkingGarage

Fox S

tree

t

Buildings(existing andproposed)

Parcels

Proposed development parcels

Potentialexpansion


rooms have been located), consolidating thesecourtrooms in the improved City and CountyBuilding. Similarly, when presentence detaineesnow housed at the county jail on Smith Road aremoved to the new presentence detention centerdowntown, some buildings at Smith Road could bedemolished and the remaining facilities improvedto achieve a better fitness for purpose.

While respecting the hierarchy of existing build-ings in the original civic core, the recommendedsolution of a justice center composed of two vol-umes is consistent with both historic and currentvisions for Denver that call for continued develop-ment to the west toward Speer Boulevard. The ac-commodation of modern detention and courts op-erations in this zone would keep them close to thecourt-related and other allied professionals asso-ciated with the justice system—attorneys, socialservices, and others—while at the same timeavoiding ill-planned encroachment into the GoldenTriangle or the downtown core to the north. In thisproposed solution, appropriate scale and imagerywould be emphasized, along with high-qualitypedestrian amenities. The justice center can serveas a positive linking element between the neigh-borhoods on either side of the axial strip.

The recommended approach to the new justicecenter thus includes strong emphases on its civicpresence as an icon and on providing further en-hancement to the Civic Center.

The Recommended Plan Expresses theHallmarks of ExcellenceThe problems with the existing master plan pro-posal stem from the attempt to cram too muchonto one site. The panel understands that this de-sign responds to the original program specified bythe city. However, the panel was asked to considerother options and has not been constrained by thesame program. Thus, while the existing proposaltechnically meets the city’s courts and jail programand minimizes the transportation of prisoners toand from the criminal courts, it does not contrib-ute substantially to the enhancement of the adja-cent community, the Civic Center, or the down-town business community.

In contrast, the panel’s recommendation com-pletely meets the proposed courts and jail pro-

gram and provides for optimal functionality. Thisresult can be achieved by acquiring additional landimmediately west of the RMN building, necessi-tating the relocation of the existing post office andseveral small businesses. The panel’s scheme pro-vides sufficient space for the criminal courts, juve-nile courts, and presentence detention of defen-dants. With the acquisition of additional land,development of two separate buildings with desir-able setbacks can be achieved and potential ex-pansion accommodated more efficiently. Above all,a more appropriate scale and massing can be ac-complished in a manner that is compatible withDenver’s historic urban fabric and design.

This scheme also provides easy accessibility andsecurity, while maintaining association with alliedagencies and offices. The panel recognizes thatnew service providers need to be brought into thejustice system to incorporate diversionary pro-grams for those who do not require incarcerationbut require other treatment. The bail bond busi-nesses could also be knitted into a revised planwith interior, 24-hour accessible space provided.In this way, these businesses would be located offthe street, something adjacent neighborhood resi-dents and business people would appreciate. Theproposed plan would provide an opportunity forentry and use of public space that would visuallyand physically link the two buildings, ensuring anaesthetic and safe environment.

Other Justice CentersNumerous examples exist of good design for proj-ects similar to the proposed Denver Justice Cen-ter. The panel recommends that city representa-tives tour the St. Louis County Justice Center andthe Milwaukee County Jail and Criminal JusticeFacility; there are many other examples that thecity may also want to explore.

The St. Louis facility offers a good example of twobuildings, for courtrooms and jail, that read as anintegrated whole. Each is distinct, yet the designis not disjointed. The two buildings are connectedby a bridge, addressing the same issues as thetunnel proposed by the ULI panel. The Milwau-kee facility also incorporates a bridge.

The panel notes, however, that the city need notlook far for fine examples of civic design. Denverhas a number of buildings that exhibit excellence:the library by Michael Graves, the City and CountyBuilding, the David Tryba–designed Webb Munici-pal Building, the forthcoming expansion to theDenver Art Museum designed by Daniel Libeskind,and the Convention Center, also under construc-tion. This ongoing tradition of excellence shouldbe maintained and extended in the design of theDenver Justice Center.



Denver has already devoted considerabletime and resources toward planning for anew justice center but has not receivedthe voter support necessary to proceed

with the needed improvements. This inability tomove ahead has reinforced a negative perceptionof the proposed area. Further, this uncertainty re-garding the future of the area has hindered pri-vate investment. This lack of private investmentand lack of growth to the tax base will increas-ingly burden the taxpayers. The panel emphasizesthat doing nothing is not protecting the commu-nity and will have broader negative economic con-sequences.

Negative Impact of No DecisionRedevelopment occurs when the business climateis attractive for private investment. Governmentdecisions need to be made expeditiously for tworeasons: the speed with which economic factors af-fecting land cost and availability can change, andthe dampening effects of uncertainty. The percep-tion that an area is “hot,” or that the municipalityplans to make infrastructure or other investmentin the area, can drastically increase the value ofland. Investors are generally expected to holdland until development conditions are right.

While both the area adjacent to the Civic Centerand the proposed site for the justice center havesome of the ingredients needed for redevelop-ment—in particular, cultural amenities—Denver’sfailure to address the courts and detention facilityissue and to decide where to place those facilitieshas created a sense of uncertainty that is cur-rently inhibiting new investment. When there isno decision and no vision of how an area will lookand function in the future, developers are loath toassume risk for their own projects. Inhibition ofprivate investment only serves to place a greatereconomic burden on the public sector and, ulti-mately, on the taxpayers.

Perception of Crime and Quality of LifeAnecdotal evidence relayed to the panel throughinterviews confirmed a perception that the CivicCenter area is plagued with crime. When commu-nities are working to retain and attract jobs, theperception of crime reduction is a precursor toeconomic development. Proof of this can be founda recent survey of real estate professionals in-volved in the business of assisting manufacturersand other business owners to select sites for ex-pansion or relocation. Low crime was rated as theleading quality-of-life factor that influences sitingdecisions. There appears to be a direct connectionbetween quality of life and economic development.Even with the many amenities in the Civic Centerneighborhood that provide incentives for new de-velopment, the top factor that will attract privateinvestment is public safety.

Following is the Area Development corporate survey’s list of quality-of-life factors, in order of priority:

1. Low crime rate;

2. Health facilities;

3. Housing availability;

4. Ratings of public schools;

5. Housing costs;

6. Climate;

7. Colleges and universities in area;

8. Recreational opportunities; and

9. Cultural opportunities.

The perception of crime in the Civic Center area isexacerbated by the daily spectacle of antiquatedbuses transporting as many as 250 detainees forcourt appearances in the City and County Build-ing. The perception is further reinforced by the

Neighborhood Impact and MarketPotential


overflow of clients and families waiting to accessthe juvenile court. Individuals visiting the build-ing to use city and county services often en-counter potentially unsafe conditions due to thelack of space to adequately separate the publicfrom detainees awaiting trial. While the presenceof criminal justice facilities is not in itself an im-pediment to economic development, the inade-quacy of Denver’s existing justice system is tar-nishing the Civic Center area’s attributes. Lawenforcement is certainly hindered by the lack offacilities; victimless crimes are often not fully ad-judicated because of the lack of space, and manyconvicted misdemeanants benefit from early re-lease for the same reasons.

Potential for Positive ImpactIn moving forward with a comprehensive solutionto its justice system’s severe overcrowding, Den-ver can incorporate other infrastructure improve-ments that can improve mobility and provideother elements that will improve the city’s qualityof life. A good example is the opportunity to en-hance open space and public assets in the CivicCenter and Golden Triangle areas. Open-space en-

hancements are economic necessities for metro-politan areas; parks, trails, and other aestheticfeatures are critical variables in the quality-of-lifeequation. Such improvements are key initiativesof many urban areas, as are pedestrian and vehic-ular mobility improvements.

The panel learned from its information-gatheringsessions that the Civic Center area is not function-ally or physically connected with the surroundingneighborhoods. The development of the justicecenter can facilitate several transportation im-provements, including the enhancement of pedes-trian mobility and greater recognition of the urbanspace. The panel believes that a new justice centercan serve as a catalyst for additional improve-ments to the immediate surroundings and lead toimproved circulation, particularly with the pro-posed closing of Gene Amole Way. If the center’sdevelopment better serves and knits with its sur-roundings and helps improve circulation in thearea, it can be an asset for the community and acatalyst for additional private development.


The panel identified a number of develop-ment strategies that the city should con-sider. Foremost, it should be understoodthat the panel is not recommending start-

ing over. Instead, the emphasis should be on as-similating some of the work that has already beendone, taking new technology into consideration,and investigating ways to encourage interdepen-dence among the various public entities that willbe involved in the development. This section ofthe report includes a discussion of the benefits ofthe ULI panel’s recommendation and some gener-alized cost figures.

Integrate Existing PlansThe panel proposes a strategy that does not entailsignificant additional planning. Rather, the panelrecommends integrating some of the existingplans as the city continues the process alreadyunderway for a new justice center. For severalyears, Denver has been quite proactive in plan-ning for individual components of the Civic Centerarea. In fact, the panel found that most of the fa-cility concerns have been adequately addressed.What is lacking, however, is a full understandingof how these plans overlap, how they are compati-ble, and how a comprehensive implementationstrategy can serve to improve the diverse infra-structure of the area. For this reason, the panelencourages the development of a strategy thatwill focus on the implementation of recommendedimprovements. The panel understands that theGovernment Complex Master Plan is intended todo just that by taking a strategic implementationfocus rather than a pure design emphasis. Thatplan should be conceived with the panel’s recom-mendation in mind. Strategic long-term goals can-not be achieved by applying a myopic view of indi-vidual elements and will only succeed throughcreating and maintaining partnerships to help re-alize a vision for the area.

Denver has taken a significant step in this direc-tion with the development of the Civic CenterPlanning Assessment in 2003 (by the Departmentof Community Planning and Development). Thisassessment takes a comprehensive look at the dis-ciplines involved in creating a sense of place andproperly engages all the stakeholders who areneeded to contribute to the success of the area.

The assessment laid the groundwork for thepanel’s assignment and directed the need for ac-tion as shown in Figure 1.

The city has an opportunity to redefine the role ofpublic facilities in the Civic Center area and theirpotential impact on the redevelopment potentialof the surroundings. Local developers are uncer-tain where the growth of government facilitieswill occur and have expressed a preference forconcentrating them north of 14th Avenue. As partof this redefinition, Denver needs to review thebuildings that currently flank the Civic Centerand determine how best to use these assets. Forexample, the Carnegie Library is a historic jewelthat currently houses functions that do not en-hance the management of the plaza area.

Consider Technological ChangesDenver is a technologically advanced community,and technological improvements should be maxi-mized as an alternative means of dealing with thefuture need for the justice system’s infrastructure.Many jurisdictions now regularly use on-line traf-fic ticket payment, video visitations, video ar-raignments, and electronically transmitted courtfilings. The reason Denver is not currently makingthese improvements is the impracticability of in-stalling the capabilities within the existing struc-tures. The construction of new facilities will pro-vide the opportunity to integrate advanced courtand justice technologies into the design; the jus-tice center’s planning and design should thus pro-

Development Strategies


vide sufficient infrastructure to permit easy andcost-efficient installation and upgrading.

This report’s Technology Addendum summarizesvarious emerging methods and advancements thatmay prove relevant to the city in its design andplanning for new courts and detention facilities.Many routine procedures are changing due totechnological advances. The panel emphasizes theneed to “design for tomorrow” and incorporatestate-of-the-art technology. Whether technologicaladvances will also impact space needs is an issuethat must be dealt with in the planning and designof new facilities.

Moving Forward with theRecommended PlanDenver leaders have traditionally addressed thejustice center issue as a jail overcrowding prob-lem, but they have now expanded its scope to in-clude the overcrowding of the courts as well. Inreality, overcrowding is a function of systemicflaws as much as a result of insufficient space. Tofocus solely on the development of larger facilitieswithout addressing operational inefficiencies andsystem improvements is not advisable. Further-more, detention and adjudication are componentsof a complex public/private legal system that in-cludes law enforcement, the district attorney, pub-lic defenders, private and nonprofit serviceproviders, and private attorneys.

Benefits of the Panel’s RecommendationThe benefits of the panel’s recommendation en-compass a variety of community goals, includingproviding a high quality of community life withina safe and economically sustainable environment.Specifically, the panel’s alternative proposal for anew justice center will provide the city with a sig-nificant return on the public investment.

The proposal aims to address the criminal justicesystem needs in a comprehensive, efficient man-ner and to allow for future growth and enhance-ment of public safety. There will be more beds,more courts, and law enforcement improvementsat a price comparable to the prior bond issue.Leased space at the Adams Mark Hotel can beeliminated, and the functions conducted there canbe returned to the civil division at the City andCounty Building. New construction will free upspace in the City and County Building for othertypes of government use and thereby help maxi-mize public assets. By enhancing several impor-tant public spaces, the proposed plan will addresssome neighborhood needs. Once the city endorsesa plan, the area’s development uncertainties willbe vastly reduced, and the city can move forwardwith its related economic development goals.

Conceptual Compilation of CostsThe panel deemed it important to generally esti-mate the costs associated with its recommendedplan and so presents the following conceptual com-

Figure 1Assessment Questions and ULI Recommendations

Questions Recommendations

Whether to proceed with plans for a new Justice Center. Proceed with plan for a new Justice Center.

The preferred site for a new DJC facility. Use RMN site plus adjacent site to be acquired.

The timing of a potential bond issue to fund the design. May 2005 ballot question.

Assignment of key city staff to the project and Establish a leadership team with technical staffthe associated improvements. resources.

The priority of the DJC project relative to the costs of The Justice Center must be top priority.funding, staffing, and time and potential impacts on the initiation and completion of other projects.

Next steps for the process. Implement assessment recommendations.


pilation (see Figure 2). These general costs buildon the anticipated public-sector investment.

The ULI panel reviewed previous cost estimatesand engaged in brief conversations with city staffand consultants to arrive at this conceptual compi-lation of costs. The panel emphasizes that thesefigures are extremely preliminary and are pro-vided for discussion purposes only. Each of thefactors contained in the panel’s recommended al-ternative require thorough evaluation based uponspecific program and design requirements, such asthe inclusion of a tunnel between buildings and de-velopment of a public plaza.

The panel’s concept would fundamentally changethe building program shown in Alternative I.Costs associated with developing two buildings in-stead of one, the tunnel and plaza between thetwo, and perhaps a different parking scheme willall impact cost estimates. The panel did proposethe same parking structure as in Alternative I butalso suggests consideration of other options. Forinstance, parking might be located under both thecourt and jail buildings, or excavation could occur

under both parcels to create one undergroundparking structure. The underground structurecould combine the tunnel and plaza in a podium-like configuration. Further study is required toreach a reliable cost estimate that can be reflectedin the bond issue to be submitted to the electoratein May 2005.

Figure 2Conceptual Development Costs

Site Cost

Justice facility $261,400,000

Additional site 10,000,000

Smith Road–Phase I 57,500,000

Retrofit City and County Building 500,000

Rehabilitate PADF for nondetention justice uses 6,000,000

Total cost estimate $335,400,000


Doing nothing has severe implications. Thepanel’s recommended steps toward imple-mentation do not contemplate additionalplanning but instead aim to gain consensus

for the purpose of moving forward with previouslyprepared plans.

The overarching premise is that this project mustbecome the city’s top priority. The Denver JusticeCenter project is too critical to wait any longer.The community and its government, business, andcivic leaders must come together to assist in mak-ing these improvements a reality.

The city should adhere to several goals in its pathtoward implementation.

• Engage and educate the political leadershipalong with the business community and civic or-ganizations. The city needs to reach out to themany constituents served by the justice system,ranging from the business community to themyriad of private service providers.

• Community leadership must be committed tothe project.

• Effectively communicate the case for and bene-fits from a new justice center. The issue isbroader and requires more than jail cells andcourtrooms alone. Civic leaders, with profes-sional assistance, must sell the project to thegeneral public.

• The mayor can ensure a transparent and inclu-sive implementation process.

• The campaign should start now.

The panel hopes that its efforts will serve as a callto action. The mayor has a major role to play thatincludes establishing a project team and providingcontinued oversight. Revised development pro-posals should be evaluated in terms of best prac-tices and projected funding.

The city must engage in a focused, expeditedprocess to meet the May 2005 ballot date. Thepanel believes that, with the mayor as championand broad-based support from community leaders,the project can win public approval. Figure 3 out-lines the steps that should be taken.

Implementation


Figure 3Implementation Strategy Timeline, 2004–2005

Develop implementation strategy

Revise DJC concept plan

Expedite planning/zoning process

Cost estimate

Prepare bond ordinance

Campaign

Election (May 2005)

MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR


Key to the panel’s recommendation is acqui-sition of additional land immediately westand adjacent to the Rocky Mountain News(RMN) site. The panel recognizes that

previous studies were limited by the need toaccommodate the program requirements with-in the RMN site. The acquisition of the adjacentblock of land, as recommended, would allow for sig-nificantly greater functionality. The city may alsodetermine that, over time, it would be beneficialto have control of additional parcels.

The city needs to build the Denver Justice Centerto address basic quality-of-life and safety issues.The time to move forward is now. The panel’s pro-posed scheme would allow for a separation of crim-inal and civil courts and a separation of long-terminmates from those who come and go. It wouldcertainly create better working conditions for thejudges, attorneys, administrators, and staff whileaddressing the ACA standards, which would leadto resumption of the city’s accreditation status.

The courts function at the center of the city’s legalsystem and represent the third branch of govern-ment—the independence of which should not becompromised by any operational or architectural

solution. Unlike jails, courts have traditionallybeen housed in architecturally distinguished build-ings that are open, that “belong to the people,”and that exhibit a positive civic presence. Other-wise, jails and courts are distinct but not disjoinedelements of the legal system that need to functiontogether efficiently and effectively. This is whatthe panel’s recommendation aims to accomplish.

The panel’s proposed plan would provide signifi-cant criminal justice improvements for the courtsdowntown and for the detention facility at SmithRoad. The mayor needs to establish a leadershiptask force to build citywide support for these im-provements. Equally important, the task forceshould exhibit a commitment to excellence in de-sign and cooperation with the community. The citymust honor its commitments to the communityand, in turn, the community needs to provide thesupport necessary to ensure the passage of thebond issue in May 2005 that can make this recom-mendation a reality. Much mutual benefit can re-sult from a relationship forged between the cityand its citizens working together toward the im-plementation of this project.

Conclusion


Richard (Rick) J. DishnicaPanel ChairPoint Richmond, California

Rick Dishnica is president of the Dishnica Com-pany, LLC, formed in 1999 to pursue individual in-vestment goals, to develop infill housing both forsale and for rent in the Bay Area, and to providereal estate consulting services. Current develop-ment projects include obtaining entitlements forthe second phase (73 units) of an apartment proj-ect next to the BART station in downtown La-fayette, California (the first phase of 75 unitswas successfully completed and leased in 2001),and the adaptive reuse and conversion of the SanFrancisco Armory, a building on the NationalRegister of Historic Places located in the city’sMission District, to 207 units of housing.

Prior to forming the Dishnica Company, Dishnicawas an executive vice president and the chief op-erating officer of American Apartment Commu-nities, a privately held REIT from 1994 throughMarch 31, 1999, with responsibility for all apart-ment operations, development, and rehabilitation.Until its merger with United Dominion RealtyTrust on December 7, 1998, American ApartmentCommunities owned and managed (directly orthrough subsidiaries) 54 apartment communitiescontaining a total of 14,141 units in Ohio, Indiana,Michigan, Kentucky, California, Oregon, Washing-ton, Colorado, and Florida. The total asset valueas of the merger was $787 million. Another port-folio containing an additional 4,000 units was re-tained to continue the business of AmericanApartment Communities.

A member of the Urban Land Institute, Dishnicaserves on the Multifamily Residential Council andis program chair for the San Francisco DistrictCouncil. He is also a member and was a director ofthe National Multi Housing Council.

He served as an officer in the U.S. Navy, achiev-ing the rank of lieutenant with assignments inVietnam and as the officer-in-charge of a mine-sweeper. He received his master’s degree in busi-ness administration from the University of South-ern California in 1974 and his BS from Ohio StateUniversity in 1968.

Diana GonzalezMiami, Florida

Diana Gonzalez is the president of DMG Consult-ing Services, Inc., and the Consulting Group ofSouth Florida, Inc. Both firms engage in manage-ment consulting services in the areas of projectmanagement and facility development for non-profit, government, and for-profit clients. Currentclients include the Beacon Council, Miami–DadeCounty, Carter Goble Lee, MGT of America, Fitchand Associates, and the Dade Community Foun-dation.

Prior to entering the private sector, Gonzalez wasemployed by Dade County as the director of theDepartment of Development and Facilities Man-agement. This agency provided central supportservices in real estate acquisition and leasing, fa-cility management, and building construction. Be-ginning as a management intern, she worked formost of her county career in the capital improve-ment field. Acquisition of county land, architectand engineer selection, and capital budget expen-diture oversight were some of her responsibilitiesin the Capital Improvements Division, which wasresponsible for the development and implementa-tion of the $200 million Criminal Justice Program.This general obligation bond program modernizedthe county’s criminal justice system through thedevelopment of new courthouses, jails, and policeand support facilities. In 1989, the Capital Im-provements Division was combined with thecounty’s facilities and construction management

About the Panel


divisions and she was named director of themerged department.

Gonzalez received her BA from the University ofFlorida. She began her career with Dade Countyimmediately following the completion of her mas-ter’s degree from Northeastern University in1979. In 1989, she attended the Senior ExecutiveProgram in State and Local Government at theJohn F. Kennedy School of Government.

Don HardenberghWilliamsburg, Virginia

Don Hardenbergh is a nationally recognized plan-ning professional specializing in justice facilityplanning, court security, court technology plan-ning, and judicial operations and management. Hisfirm, Court Works, performs court facility masterplanning, facility and technology programming,postoccupancy evaluations, feasibility studies, siteselection analyses, security evaluations, recordsmanagement evaluations, court workload andstaffing analyses and forecasting, court manage-ment reviews, and case flow analyses. He has over30 years of experience with issues related to themanagement of government and public policy,with the last 23 years dedicated to the improve-ment of courts and their facilities.

He is the author of The Courthouse: A Planningand Design Guide for Court Facilities, first andsecond editions, published by the National Centerfor State Courts, he compiled Retrospective ofCourthouse Design, 1981–1991, and he was coedi-tor of Retrospective of Courthouse Design, 1991–2001, published by the National Center for StateCourts in 2001.

Among his most recent projects are technologyand security planning for a new justice facility inNew Orleans, Louisiana; a facility and securityprogram for the Las Cruces, New Mexico, Munici-pal Court and the Dona Ana County MagistrateCourt; master planning for the Sandy Districtcourts in Salt Lake City, Utah; a court facilitymaster plan for the Howard County, Maryland,Circuit Court; programming for the ChesterCounty, Pennsylvania, courts and county govern-ment offices; and an implementation plan and de-

sign for court service centers that assist pro se(self-representing) litigants in Virginia. He ispresently working with KMD Architects in SanFrancisco on the space programming for sevencounty court facility master plans as part of astatewide court master-planning project.

Hardenbergh received a BA in political scienceand a master’s degree in public administrationfrom Pennsylvania State University.

Paula K. KonikoffNew York, New York

Paula K. Konikoff, JD, MAI, is a member of theAppraisal Standards Board and an independentprofessional real estate consultant with 20 yearsof experience providing clients with advisory, val-uation, and other consulting services. The scope ofher practice ranges from designing and conduct-ing due diligence investigations on properties,conducting and evaluating property appraisals,and advising private and public institutions (bothowners and lenders) regarding the acquisition, de-velopment, and disposition of their real estateholdings, as well as their fit within a real estateportfolio. Konikoff has provided such services con-cerning properties throughout the United States(from Hawaii to New York) and abroad (fromHong Kong to the Czech Republic). Her broad na-tional and international experience enables her toprovide unusually comprehensive analyses for thegrowing number of investors and lenders with in-ternational real estate portfolios. She is a frequentspeaker and author on appraisal and other realproperty issues.

Prior to establishing her independent real estateadvisory practice in 1993, Konikoff was director ofnational real estate valuation services at KPMG.She joined KPMG in 1989 after having served aspresident of the Hudson Group, a national real es-tate consulting and appraisal firm. Previously, shehad been an attorney in private practice with thePhiladelphia law firm of Dilworth, Paxson, Kalishand Kauffman, where she worked in both the realestate and corporate law practice areas.

Konikoff is also an adjunct professor at New YorkUniversity, where she has taught graduate and


undergraduate courses on real estate finance,markets, and appraisal. She is an instructor aswell for the Appraisal Foundation, where she con-ducts programs on standards of appraisal practiceand on professional appraisal ethics. She developsand presents real estate valuation seminars forcontinuing education credits for CPAs and attor-neys. She has also served as an expert witness in a variety of legal cases in which real estate valua-tion and damages issues have come into dispute.Prior to her appointment to the Appraisal Stan-dards Board in January 2003, she presented semi-nars on standards of practice, ethics, and valuationissues in litigation for the Appraisal Institute.

She earned a BS from Temple University and aJD from Villanova University School of Law.

Todd S. Phillips, AIASilver Spring, Maryland

Todd Phillips is a courts planning, design, andresearch consultant whose work focuses on bothstate and federal facilities. Master planning, spaceprogramming, adaptive use planning, facility as-sessments, and technical reviews of courts designand construction documents are among the pro-fessional services his firm offers. All work re-flects the latest standards and principles of cur-rent best practice.

Recent projects have included conducting assess-ments of approximately 50 courts facilities in Cali-fornia as a consultant to the state’s comprehensive20-year county courts master-planning effort, aswell as “plan check” reviews of federal courthousedesigns in progress. He has also consulted oncourts planning and design projects in Maryland,Illinois, Florida, New Mexico, and Virginia (withspecial emphasis in the latter state on a pro seservice center prototype study).

Phillips is the principal author of Justice FacilitiesPlanning and Design, published by John Wileyand Sons in August 2003. The book’s 12 chaptersaddress the operations, planning, and design of allmajor justice facility types—law enforcement, de-tention, courts, corrections, juvenile and family,and multioccupant justice centers—as well astheir engineered systems, technology, security,costs, financing, and alternative project deliverymethods. Phillips’s reflective essay, “CourthouseDesign at a Crossroads,” will appear in Celebrat-ing the Courthouse, to be published later this yearby W.W. Norton.

He received bachelor’s and master’s degrees fromGeorge Washington University, a master's degreein architecture from the University of California–Berkeley, and a PhD in history from the Univer-sity of Wisconsin–Madison through a Ford Foun-dation fellowship. He is a registered architect andmember of the American Institute of Architects.


The following government officials and com-munity leaders met with the ULI panel inindividual interviews or as part of a round-table discussion.

MayorHonorable Mayor John Hickenlooper

City CouncilCouncilman Rick Garcia, District 1

Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz, District 2

Councilwoman Rosemary Martinez, District 3

Councilwoman Peggy Lehmann, District 4

Councilwoman Marcia Johnson, District 5

Councilman Charlie Brown, District 6

Councilwoman Kathleen MacKenzie, District 7

Councilwoman Elbra Wedgeworth, District 8,Council President

Councilwoman Judy Montero, District 9

Councilwoman Jeanne Robb, District 10

Councilman Michael Hancock, District 11

Councilwoman Carol Boigo, At-Large

Councilman Doug Linkhart, At-Large

City Staff Michael Bennet, Chief of Staff

Beth Conover, Special Assistant to the Mayor

Happy Haynes, Mayor’s Office Council Liaison

Seneca Holmes, Mayor’s Office Policy Assistant

Peter Park, Manager, Community Planning andDevelopment

Dennis Swain, Program Manager, CommunityPlanning and Development

Derek Brown, Asset Management

Kurt Schumacher, Asset Management

JudgesJudge Raymond Satter, Presiding Judge, Denver

County Court Judge Jeffrey Bayless, Chief Judge, Denver Dis-

trict Court Matt McConville, County Court AdministratorChief Justice Mary Mullarkey, Colorado Supreme

Court

Sheriffs Undersheriff Fred Oliva Chief Bill Lovingier Chief Steve Comito (retired)Chief Ron FoosMajor Marie KielarMajor Gary Wilson

Court Users Bill Ritter, 2nd Judicial District, Denver District

Attorney Joe Dischinger, Denver Bar AssociationCharlie Garcia, Colorado State Public Defender

Justice Center PresentersBob Johnson, Reilly Johnson ArchitectureRon Mason, Anderson Mason Dale ArchitectsMike Frawley, HOKAdrian Brown, Citizens for a Better Denver

Golden Triangle Association andJustice Center Task ForceEric BoydJanis FramePaul GrattetDennis Humphries Carol Minar

Mickey Zeppelin

Appendix


Citizens for a Better Denver and GoldenTriangle Arts DistrictRobin Riddel Lima

Carol Minar

Dr. Jim Raughton

Nell Swiers

Stapleton Development Richard L. Anderson, CEO Stapleton Develop-

ment Corporation

Marva Coleman, Secretary Stapleton Develop-ment Corporation Board

Beverly Haddon, President Stapleton Foundationfor Sustainable Urban Communities

Khadija Haynes, Founder of The Urban Farms atStapleton

John Lehigh, COO Forest City Stapleton

Tom Gleason, VP Public Relation Forest CityStapleton

Civic Center Park/Cultural FacilitiesHelen Kuykendall, Landscape Architect, Parks

and Recreation

Steve Turner, Denver Public Library

Partnerships and Private Interests Annie Warhover, Downtown Denver Partnership,

Inc.

Becky Wilcox, Executive Assistant, DowntownDenver Partnership

Brad Buchanan, Buchanan Yonushewski Group

Kim Koehn, Equity Office

John Shaw, Opus Northwest LLC


Different kinds of justice facilities may havedifferent kinds of images. For example,buildings that house operations involvingjuvenile and family matters may be delib-

erately noninstitutional in appearance. Court-houses, in contrast, strive to project the majestyof the law without being unduly intimidating.

The image of the justice system as a whole shouldbe a careful exercise in appropriateness, carriedout with the recognition that buildings conveymessages. The justice system should not be per-ceived as a closed, monolithic, and fortresslikepresence in the community. On the contrary, itstrives to be open and transparent and to work inpartnership with the citizenry. It reflects sharedvalues and the larger community interest.

Unique Characteristics of JusticeFacilitiesJustice facilities in general have characteristicsthat make them different from most other kindsof facilities. First, they tend to have an unusuallyhigh degree of visibility. Courthouses in particularhave traditionally served as important civic land-marks or anchor points, and many of them arearchitecturally distinguished. They often featureattention-getting design that attempts to conveythe dignity and decorum of the judicial process.Other justice facilities, such as prisons and jails,may be visible because of their scale while other-wise seeking to be blandly unobjectionable in ap-pearance. The full spectrum of justice facilities en-compasses a variety of types at every scale andwith every kind of architecture.

Second, the planning and design of justice facili-ties must be organized around complicated, mis-sion-driven programs. Each facility type has itsown set of highly specific functional requirements,and these are always evolving. The physical bricksand mortar of justice have to be well conceived to

achieve—and to maintain over time—true fitnessfor purpose in each case. As staffing levels andequipment change, and as the job of carrying outthe mission becomes increasingly technology-intensive, the ability of facilities to support theoperations is continually challenged.

Third, justice facilities in general are characterizedby construction materials and methods that aremore durable and of higher quality than those ex-hibited by conventional buildings. Justice facilitieshave to do more and to last longer. The full life cycleof a building may extend to 50 or 100 years. A jus-tice facility therefore should not be regarded assomething to be built to mere office-space standards.

Fourth, new justice facilities are often developedon a site or in a context that involves existingbuildings. Remodeling within and additions toolder buildings are commonplace. New buildingsare also often developed as part of a group or civicensemble of other buildings. The physical infra-structure of justice in America has thus tended toevolve in an additive fashion over time. Issues ofarchitectural and operational compatibility be-tween different buildings of varying age and styleare more the rule than the exception.

AccessibilityThe type and degree of access provided to a jus-tice facility depends upon the facility type. Fordetention and corrections facilities, public accessmust be highly controlled on the exterior and evenmore so on the inside.

For those elements of the justice system that areintended to be open and public—notably courts,court-related agencies, and community-based lawenforcement facilities—the prevailing view is thatgreat care should be taken to avoid a “fortress”scenario or an architecture of fear. The opennessof the system should not be compromised byclumsy attempts to harden it against threats.

Design Addendum


The concept of accessibility itself has evolved inrecent years to extend beyond the physically dis-abled only. The buildings need to be navigable byblind, deaf, and wheelchair-bound persons, andthey also need to respond to the geriatric, the eco-nomically disadvantaged, the non-English-speak-ing, and the citizenry in general. Growing num-bers of the latter are self-represented litigantswho cannot afford legal counsel. Good design ad-dresses the way-finding and informational needsof all these people.

Safety and SecurityCurrent best practice recognizes that safety andsecurity are key priorities, and that they areachieved through the careful integration of physi-cal design, technology-based systems, and highlytrained personnel. The highest threats to securityoften involve random, spontaneous outbreaks ofviolence in a public corridor or parking lot.

Design strategies for the interior layout of justicefacilities vary according to the specific type, butcontrolled circulation paths (separating public, pri-vate, and secure zones) and unobstructed sight-lines are key in every case. Exterior security atthe building perimeter and beyond involves manyconsiderations, from enclosure systems and light-ing to setbacks from the property line.

Finally, it has been observed at least anecdotallythat good design can encourage good behavior.Public space in plazas, lobbies, corridors, and wait-ing areas, for example, can reflect a measure ofdignity, decorum, and solemnity that may reducethe risk of disruptive outbreaks.

Conversely, uncomfortable or visually sterilespace may incite inhumane behavior. When theconditions of confinement in detention and correc-tions facilities are designed to function at the low-est possible threshold only, the results may becounterproductive in several ways. Danger levelsincrease, the institution is forced to spend more ofits resources, not less, trying to control them, andany chance for success with rehabilitation pro-grams is lost.

Ability to Accommodate Growth andExpansionCurrent best practice in justice facilities designanticipates the need to expand as the volume ofwork to be done increases over the years. Futureexpansion within the envelope of a facility can bemade possible by designing its structural andother engineered systems in a way that permits arelatively easy and economical reconfiguration ofspace inside. Expansion outside the initial enve-lope can be made possible by site selection thatleaves room for extending the footprint of thebuilding(s) in a way that makes design and struc-tural sense.

Hallmarks of Excellent DesignConnecting stand-alone buildings that separatethe detention and courts components is an ap-proach that has a well-known pedigree in justicefacilities planning and design. One example is thefamous Allegheny County Courthouse and Jailin Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, designed by H.H.Richardson a century ago. More recent examplesinclude the Milwaukee County Jail and CriminalJustice Facility as well as the St. Louis CountyJustice Center. Both of these latter examplesuse an overhead bridge to connect the detentionand courts buildings, but tunnel connections arealso commonplace.

State-of-the-art functionality for each facility isalso easier to achieve when each can be developedon its own terms. Detention facilities and courtsrequire significantly different building systems,from structure to shell, as well as different spe-cialty systems and mechanical, electrical, andplumbing infrastructure. These can be optimizedmuch more readily when they do not have tobe completely combined beneath the same roof.Moreover, each type can be planned and designedto accommodate growth and change in ways thatminimize the costs of modification in the future.“Shell space” or “swing space,” for example, canbe built in from the beginning.

On the exterior, the reduced scale and massing oftwo separate buildings make it possible to developpedestrian amenities in the form of landscapedgreen space, street furniture, and a plaza closed to


vehicular traffic. Generous setbacks from the prop-erty line can also help to resolve the potentiallycompeting requirements for higher security onthe one hand and greater accessibility on the other.Setbacks can be integrated skillfully into a secu-rity design strategy that uses bollards and otherhardscape elements to detect, deter, and delaycertain threats. They can also improve sightlines.

At the same time, accessibility can be enhancedwhen there is ample room for landscaping andcomfortable modulations of the ground plane to

accommodate ramps for the wheelchair-bound. Tothe extent that accessibility is also a function ofthe appearance of inviting openness—of approach-ability—an appealing entry sequence can be de-signed to guide citizens from an exterior plaza tothe front door and through the security check-point to the lobby space and public corridor areasinside. Rather than impose an abrupt confronta-tion with a building that comes nearly to the curb,in other words, the entry sequence can be madeinto a comfortable procession.


One of the main uses of remote electronic

access is to research information. Attor-neys, prosecutors, probation officers, pre-trial officers, and creditors, as well as

defendants and plaintiffs, all need on occasion tolocate information about a case. Instead of physi-cally going to the clerk’s office to find the casenumber in an index, request the case file, and re-view the file at the counter or have copies made,this can all be done quickly and electronically fromremote locations if the case records are automated.

Another use of electronic access is the filing ofcourt cases and pleadings. By dialing up a court’scomputer or accessing its Web site, attorneys cansimply transmit case documents electronically, thuseliminating the need to journey to the courthouse.

The time will come when the courts will also makeextensive use of e-commerce to process fines andfees, and file and respond to complaints using theInternet. The idea of remote access to courts is inits infancy and lags behind the private sector. Butwith the greater emphasis that governments andthe courts are placing on service to the public, it isinevitable that the ability to transact business usingInternet connections will become commonplace.

Videoconferencing refers to two-way communica-tions that link different locations using audio andvideo technology for the real-time transmission ofdigitized video images and sound. For many years,courts in widespread jurisdictions have been usingvideoconferencing to conduct arraignments, pre-trial release interviews, mental health hearings,pretrial conferences, remote witness testimony,and other similar events. The potential uses ofvideoconferencing are many, and the future islikely to see its widespread adoption for initialappearance hearings, arraignments, bail and de-tention hearings, compliance hearings, remotewitness testimony in civil cases, and even attor-ney interviews with jailed clients. Each of these

instances will save the courts and county timeand money.

Electronic filing offers several advantages. Docu-ments are transmitted faster, less expensively,and with greater security. Computers can performdocument retrieval functions faster than people,saving time and effort in filing and retrievingphysical case files or references. Computer pro-grams for displaying text often include hypertextfunctions that enable a reader to click on a partic-ular citation and have the computer automaticallyretrieve and display the reference.

Electronic imaging is a technology that stores doc-uments as electronic “photographs” in a computer,which can then be viewed on workstation displayscreens, eliminating the need to store and retrievepaper files. Electronic documents may be routedto any workstation in seconds, thus speeding theprocessing of cases. Files also may be retrieved in-stantly, eliminating the need to spend hours track-ing down paper case files that have been mislaid.

In those courts where imaging has been tried,one of the major benefits has been a significantreduction in the time spent handling paper andcompleting routine transactions. Among thebenefits are:

• improved file/case processing;

• improved case-flow management;

• improved file integrity;

• easy document retrieval;

• reduced paper handling;

• fewer misplaced files and lost documents;

• improved customer satisfaction resulting frombetter access;

Technology Addendum


• reduced time spent manually filing records andmaintaining file rooms; and

• reduced on-site file storage.

The future may see the elimination or reduction oflarge record rooms and record storage vaults asmore information is automated, imaged, stored,and made available electronically. This trend, inturn, may affect the space needs of new facilities.In considering development of state-of-the-art fa-cilities, Denver should be sure that it is planningfor tomorrow.

the denver justice center, denver...

Documents