Courthouse choices
analysis by Mike Kroll
the Zephyr, Galesburg, Ill. Aug. 26, 2010 and Sept. 2, 2010
Let's start this article by itemizing
some basic facts. The Knox County Courthouse is a proud old building
constructed well before most of the electrical and mechanical systems we take
for granted either existed or were commonplace. It was completed in 1886,a much simpler time and was
designed to meet very different needs of a smaller county population. The
county board at that time moved with comparative speed and decisiveness to
determine that a new courthouse was needed. They then quickly determined the
building space needs, identified a renown architect and sought construction
bids for the new building. The entire process took less that two years and the
project was completed at a cost of
$146,453.51 (including furnishings and architecture fee to Col. E.E.
Myers).. As originally designed it was heated by a steam boiler and gas lights
were used for illumination; plumbing was rudimentary and, as per custom of the
day, took little account of the needs of women.
In the 124 years since a wide array
of building “enhancements” and remodeling has occurred notably including
electrical wiring, addition of an elevator, new plumbing (including rest rooms
for women) making third floor space out of what was once the two-story main
courtroom gallery and the addition of air conditioning. All of these changes
were completed as economically as possible and many, many corners were cut on
regular maintenance to save county expense.
There can be no doubt that brick, stone and steel building was
well constructed of quality materials and good craftsmanship. And today remains
structurally sound but nearly all of the electrical, heating and air
conditioning, plumbing, and data cabling badly needs to be replaced and
modernized. The beauty and elegance of Myers exterior design remains largely in
tact only on the north and east facades and for the most part the interior
portions of the building have lost much of there original character and
splendor. Finally, the administrative and judicial needs of our county
government have simply out-grown the building.
The questions that face the Knox
County Board are: 1. has the present courthouse outlived its usefulness? 2. if
the existing courthouse is to continue being used how can the necessary extra
space be found? 3. if the existing courthouse is to continue being used how
much effort and expense should be invested in preserving the historical design
and appearance? and 4. if the county board wishes to abandon use of the courthouse
what is to become of it?
While there seems to be substantial
public sentiment that preserving the existing courthouse is important even if
all county functions are removed it also seems clear that the not insubstantial
cost of upkeep and potential reuse is of significant concern. If the county
board decides to construct a wholly new Knox County Courthouse and move all
administrative and judicial functions out of the existing building there is
also the issue of the sentimentally and historically significant monuments that
currently grace the green space principally east and north of the courthouse.
Back in April representatives of Durrant (a Des
Moines architectural firm) and Johnson Building Systems of Galesburg presented
a joint proposal to the county board to perform “pre-design services” for three
options to addressing the facility needs of Knox County. Those options
included: (a) renovating the existing courthouse with an addition to expand
available space, (b) renovating the existing courthouse for continued judicial
use and moving administrative offices to a separate existing building in
Galesburg, and © building an entirely new modern courthouse.
The county board approved a lump sum
fee contract of $43,875 (curiously unnecessary precision?) and earlier this
month Durrant delivered the highly anticipated “Courthouse Study: Master plan
assessment” which was discussed by the building committee of the Knox County
Board on August 10, 2010. The full county board was scheduled to discuss the
study as this newspaper went to press (Wednesday, August 25).
Durrant did a facilities needs
analysis to better ascertain the county's space needs but they seem to have
reached some questionable conclusions. For example, nowhere in their plan is a
meeting room suitable for the county board included. And in an era of declining
numbers of actual trials, particularly criminal, the study specifies room for
five courtrooms; one of 1,800 square feet, two of 1,200 square feet and two of 800
square feet. The specified space for county administrative offices and the
Circuit Clerk's office appear generous. One illustrative example is the Public
Information office with space to accommodate four staff above the current
single staff member.
Another issue is Durrant's approach
toward compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act with fully ADA
compliant restrooms on all three courthouse floors. While this has become
standard practice in new construction the requirements of the act only mandate
that reasonable accommodations be made in existing buildings. In the case of a
remodeled courthouse I suspect that a single ADA restroom for each sex located
in the building's basement and accessible via elevator should suffice.
A major disappointment with the plans
from Durrant is that even in the instance of opting to relocate non-judicial
offices outside of the existing courthouse and renovate that building only to
accommodate the courts and ancillary offices Durrant sees the need to append
two ugly additions to the south facade. The purpose of the smaller addition
(8,800 square feet) is to accommodate the previously mentioned ADA-compliant
restrooms for each floor while the second is a large single-story security
sallyport for the movement of prisoners. As illustrated in the report both are
nothing but grafted on modern-style appendages bearing absolutely no concession
with the original appearance of the existing courthouse.
Just as distressing, in both options
using the existing courthouse parking is moved to the lawn area east of the
building along Cherry Street. This would involve not only require the removal
of many fine trees and the loss of aesthetic green space but also that the many
historical monuments currently located in this area be moved. Essentially
this change would virtually
destroy and courthouse's most attractive facade needlessly.
A much preferable option would be for
the county to cooperatively work with Knox College to purchase the former
Alexander Lumber Yard on the southeast corner of South and Cherry Streets. The
existing structures could be removed and a parking lot constructed that can
serve the needs of both entities without sacrificing the courthouse aesthetics.
The option to append a much larger
yet still aesthetically inappropriate addition to the south facade of the
courthouse to permit all existing administrative functions to remain on-site is
even more of a visible abomination to the original courthouse design with the
same parking lot problems along Cherry Street. The representative elevation
presented in the study document is so bad that recalls the embarrassingly bad
grafting of Galesburg's new City Hall to the Public Safety Building.
There seems to be no evidence
whatsoever that the folks from Durrant gave any consideration at all toward an
aesthetically appropriate appearance for either addition. A cynic might suspect
that this was no accident. Perhaps including an ugly addition or an even bigger
ugly addition to both courthouse reuse plans was intended to make these options
as unappealing as possible so the county board would opt for an entirely new
building.
The suggested floor plans for the
interior reuse of the existing courthouse also raise questions. The floor plan
of the remodeled courthouse is the same in both instances with the only real
difference being how large the ugly appendage. With the exception of the
traffic courtroom and a single judges chamber the entire first floor of the
courthouse becomes the domain of the Circuit Clerk's office.
The second floor houses the largest
courtroom and two smaller courtrooms plus three judges chambers, two seemingly
small jury rooms, the bailiff's office and prisoner holding area and additional
Circuit Clerk space. The third floor is home to the fifth courtroom and judge's
chamber, more Circuit Clerks space, the State's Attorney's offices and the
offices of the Public Defender. Despite previous discussion to move the
existing public use elevator the floor plans show it remaining as is today with
the addition of a second, “secure” elevator for the exclusive use of prisoner
movement.
For an architectural firm supposedly
experienced in courthouse design is seems to me that locating the State's
Attorney's and Public Defender's office on the same floor sharing a
hallway/public waiting area is a questionable choice. Do we really want crime
victims and witnesses sitting side-by-side or across a hallway from the Public
Defender's clients, their family or witnesses?
In both reuses of the courthouse the
basement area is devoted almost entirely to storage and a secure entrance and
exit for prisoners from the sallyport to the secure elevator. The fourth floor
would be dedicated to building mechanicals and support needs with no public use
or access.
Curiously, in the option with the
large addition (48,300 square feet) to accommodate the administrative offices
no effort whatsoever was expended to show any kind of floor plan. The folks
from Durrant merely suggest the there is ample square footage to accommodate
these offices within the addition. Also shown in this option is an elevator
within the large addition leaving one to wonder is this replaces the existing
public elevator within the courthouse or is yet a third elevator for good
measure.
Durrant's estimated cost figures are
also interesting. In both of the reuse options they estimate the cost to
renovate the basement through third floor of the courthouse at $6,225,000 plus
an additional $285,000 to “clean up the fourth floor.” Exterior repair and
upgrades to the existing courthouse $500,000 and parking and site
improvement/adjustments $950,000.
If the option to move administrative
offices out of the courthouse is chosen Durrant estimates a cost of $9,9
million to acquire a building of 45,500 square feet and $3.5 million to
construct the small addition and sallyport. If the option to construct a larger
addition to house the administrative offices is chosen the estimated cost of
that structure is $11.7 million. Durrant's estimates assume that purchasing a
suitable administrative building in downtown Galesburg will cost more than
constructing the large addition but frankly I find that hard to believe. The
total estimated cost (including contingencies, professional fees and
administrative costs) to redo the courthouse and move the administrative
offices off-site is $27.5 million while rehabbing the courthouse and
constructing the larger addition comes to $25.6 million according to Durrant's
report.
The third option is to build a brand
spanking new courthouse with an adjacent county administrative building on the
south side of Simmons Street adjacent to the existing jail. The Durrant report
reads as if this property already belongs to Knox County and that there would
be no acquisition costs but that isn't the case. The proposed location for the
four-story new courts facility would be where the former Carriage House store
was located currently owned by John Pritchard while the proposed location for
the four-story administrative building would be the former Illinois Power
building (currently housing the Brighter Life Bookstore) owned by Mike Martin.
In between these two is the former Lefler Brown building that would also have
to be purchased and raised to accommodate the project.
Your guess is as good as mine as to
what price each of these properties would sell for if this option were chosen.
The property owners may or may not be eager to sell to the county and at least
one operating business would need to be relocated in the process. Additionally
it should be noted that Pritchard is the son-in-law of Alan Johnson and
brother-in-law of Paul Johnson, the principals of Durrants's partner in this
project Johnson Building Systems.
My initial suspicion was that this
third option was the one Durrant really wanted to sell to the county board. The
prices for rehabilitating the courthouse and accommodating the administrative
offices seem inflated on the first two options and the proposed design so ugly
that it screams of an attempt to make rehabilitating the courthouse the least
attractive alternatives. However, the utter absence of any detail provided for
this third option is just as astounding. Other than estimated costs this study
says nothing about what a potential new courthouse and administrative building
would look like or how they might be configured. Additionally, the critical
800-pound gorilla in this scenario, the total lack of space to accommodate
parking, isn't mentioned in the Durrant study.
As far as estimated costs for the
third option Durrant comes in at just under $30 million excluding property acquisition
costs. A new four-story 66,000 square feet courthouse is estimated to cost
$15.8 million while the four-floor administrative building is estimated at
about $5 million (curiously this figure is about half the estimated cost of
either the larger addition to the existing courthouse or acquiring a existing
building to move the administrative offices). Durrant estimates that demolition
of the existing structures to cost a quarter million, remodeling the existing
jail to accommodate a secure direct access way to the new courthouse at
$600,000 and site preparation costs at just over a million dollars. The total
estimated project cost (including contingencies, professional fees and
administrative costs) of building brand new all around is estimated at $30 million.
While the county board building
committee seems to believe that they now have all the information necessary for
the full board to make a sound and informed decision on the future of the
courthouse I remain skeptical. Outside of cost estimates that often seem
plucked from thin air this report is decidedly lacking in detain and
specificity. And there are a surprisingly large number of factual errors and
misunderstandings on the part of the report authors that concern me. The space
analysis seems incomplete and there is no evidence that any thought was given
toward blending any additions with the existing courthouse facade or detail. In
short, this reports raises nearly as many questions as it answers and appears
to be a poor foundation on which to base such a critical decision.
Part II
Last week I
analyzed the three alternative solutions proposed by consulting architect
Durrant to the courthouse dilemma and concluded that all three suggestions were
severely flawed. Both of the alternatives to continue using the existing
courthouse include ugly and inappropriate additions to the building. But both
also swept away the many mature trees and historical monuments on the
courthouse lawn alongside Cherry Street to make room for a parking lot. On
exterior aesthetics these plans failed but their internal layout for the
courthouse and its additions were equally ill-considered. Little is really
accomplished if reusing the courthouse only creates new problems while it
sacrifices the history it supposedly preserves and protects.
There seems
to be general agreement among everyone I have spoken with that grafting an
addition to the courthouse negates most of the value of preserving the
building, sort of like the ”modern” façades grafted on to once-proud building
downtown during the 1960s and 70s. And no one has seriously suggested
demolishing the current courthouse but its prospects would be dim indeed if the
county abandons the building entirely. The only realistic option that preserves
this Galesburg landmark is to divide the uses into court related and administrative
and move one segment out while rehabbing the courthouse to better meet the
needs of those who stay. The deciding factor in this instance will probably be
that it will simply cost more to move the court facilities elsewhere than
moving the administrative functions.
Make no
mistake, many courthouse employees prefer the third option of abandoning the
current courthouse in favor of constructing a new facility; because after
suffering for years in a dysfunctional and poorly maintained old building they
see new as their best chance at a more comfortable and usable workplace. I also
suspected that this would be the preferred alternative by the consultants as
they stand to get much more work, and easier work, out of building entirely
new. But Durrant failed miserably in selling this presentation by the near
total absence of thoughtful design or detain in just how such a new building
would accomplished. Oh, and the $30 million price tag wasn't any help.
The cost
figures provided for both of the presentation options seemed very inflated.
Does anyone really think that it would cost the county nearly $10 million to
acquire and prepare a 45,000 foot administration building in Galesburg? Hell,
Durrant's own option to construct a brand new 30,000 square foot four-story
administration building only a little over $5 million. I suggest that it is
perfectly feasible to remodel the existing courthouse to meet the reasonable
judicial needs of the county, including all the necessary mechanical,
electrical and other updates, (without any addition) for about $6 million.
There is no
legal or compelling need to build a new elevator or create ADA restrooms on
each public floor of the courthouse. The present elevator is in good shape and
accessible rest rooms can be carved out of the courthouse basement. As to a
“secure” elevator merely alter the existing elevator controls to permit
security officers to operate the elevator in exclusive express mode between the
basement and each of the three public use floors. The mingling of prisoners
with the public would thus be eliminated in the elevator itself and can be
dealt with (as is only occasionally necessary) between the elevator and
courtrooms. There are very few prisoners that pose any real risk of escape or
danger to courthouse patrons, certainly not enough to justify the additional
expense.
There is no
need for five courtrooms in a courthouse with four assigned judges and actually
seldom a need to have four courtrooms. The biggest crowds are always for
traffic court because no one in our judicial system seems capable of
implementing a system that spreads out traffic tickets over two or three days
rather than on Mondays only. Perhaps a system of evenly assigning different
court days to police officers who write the tickets? If our judges can't sort
this out they shouldn't be allowed to keep their prime parking spots at the
courthouse door. And, let's please acknowledge just how lame-brained it was of
Durrant to assign both the State's Attorney and Public Defender to offices across
the hall from one another; rearrange the second and third floor plans to keep
these offices separated, please.
Now some
suggestions to the parking dilemma. Please banish any ideas of moving or
creating parking where the current tree-covered lawn sits along Cherry Street.
Instead, first expand the present parking lot westward somewhat without
encumbering on Standish Park to gain some parking spaces. Then approach the
Galesburg City Council to discuss widening Tompkins, Cherry and South Streets
around the perimeter of the courthouse sufficient to permit the creation of
angled parking spaces. This would potentially create far more parking spaces
than sacrificing the west lawn and it would look retro-cool as well. And
remember, if the administrative offices are moved off-site and we
de-concentrate the huge number of people who show up simultaneously for traffic
court on Mondays, the parking issue will be significantly reduced.
Now let's
explore two nearby alternative locations for those relocated administrative offices.
As I mentioned last week, the former Alexander Lumber Yard on the southeast
corner of Prairie and South Streets could be purchased by the county. Demolish
the current structures and build a new multi-story administrative building with
room left for parking to serve that building. I have little doubt that this
could be done for $5-6 million — thereby bringing the cost of solving the
courthouse dilemma to the much more affordable $12-15 million dollar range.
But let me
conclude with an idea that is well off the beaten trail of thought. Recall that
the renowned Col. E. E. Myers was the original architect of the courthouse but
he also designed another historically significant Galesburg building that
currently sits abandoned and in disrepair — Knox College's Alumni Hall. It sits
mothballed and unused on the south side of South Street as a neighbor to the
courthouse. The design similarities are striking as is the potential fate of
this once-proud building.
It has
literally been decades since Knox officials spoke about renovating and
restoring Alumni Hall to campus use but the lack of available funds has stymied
any progress. Some members of the Knox Board of Trustees have reportedly stated
aloud that the college must either find a way to restore Alumni Hall or
demolish it before it decays too much further. Like the courthouse, Alumni Hall
is structurally sound and its slate roof was replaced at significant cost just
a decade ago. Its mechanical, electrical and other systems must be replaced and
the interior renovated to suit modern needs.
What if
Knox County approached Knox College and offered to lease Alumni Hall for a
token sum over say 50-75 years with a commitment to renovate the interior to
meet the county’s administrative needs? Knox has already done that with Whiting
Hall which is leased out on a 99-year agreement.
Alumni Hall
certainly is spacious enough to meet the county's needs and its location
couldn't be much more convenient to the existing courthouse. The huge (~900
seat) central auditorium would make a fine community meeting room and County
Board meeting room while the east and west wings of the building appear to be
more than ample to accommodate all of the county's administrative needs in what
would be a most fitting sibling to a restored courthouse. The angled parking on
South Street should accommodate most of the parking needs if expanded to
include both the north and south sides of the street and the speed limit
reduced to 20-25 miles per hour.
The cost of
this renovation can only be guessed at but let us presume it to be $10 million,
This is no more than constructing an ugly modern addition to the existing
courthouse. Because both of these buildings are of historical significance and
community landmarks there may even be federal grant dollars to assist in
funding such an appropriate and noteworthy project.
Not only
would Knox County's space problems be well in hand but Knox College could
escape from a campus white elephant it can't afford to renovate itself. Here
would be an excellent opportunity for history-making cooperation between the
college and the county toward achieving a simultaneous solution to a pair of
stubborn longstanding challenges. I spoke with Knox College president Roger
Taylor about this idea on Tuesday. Taylor acknowledged the unconventional
nature of the solution and the unique potential but cautioned that it wasn't a
solution he would advise his board to undertake. “I remain convinced that
Alumni Hall is a valuable potential asset to the Knox Campus for which the
college must find a funding solution.”
Ten years
ago the Zephyr ran a story, “Alumni Hall restoration planned” which began: “Knox College's long-mothballed Alumni Hall may soon be restored and
renovated if plans recently prepared by their architect reach fruition. While
the Knox Now! $125 million capital campaign seems to have plateaued and the
search for additional funds to built a new pool appears to remain stagnant,
college officials hope to attract significant outside funding for this $9.3
million project from a variety of sources.”
I beg both
the Knox County Board and the Knox College Board to give this possible solution
some serious critical thought. We have the potential to save two significant
local historical buildings at reasonable cost and great public utility.
Opportunities like this don't come up every day and we shouldn't reflexively
dismiss this one.