Law School Special Collections, Archives & Law Library Exhibits

The design process began with the law school drafting a "Program Narrative" of its requirements.  At the beginning of the Program Narrative the law school set forth five “cross cutting” themes:

• The building should be distinguished;

• The building should encourage faculty and student discourse;

• The building should meet comfort and study needs;

• The building should encourage experimenting with new educational methods;

• The building should not become quickly obsolete because of lack of space or design flexibility.

The forty-nine-page document then went on to cover every aspect of the law school’s operation, from future enrollment assumptions to the overall appearance of the building, to special pedagogical requirements. 

The document next focused on the overall “sense of the building,” and then sketched out particular requirements for classrooms, the library, courtrooms, the clinic, administrative services, the Dean’s suite, legal career services, financial aid, student records, admissions, special programs, religious and contemplative activity, student life, student organizations, development and alumni affairs, and technology. 

Participating in a Charrette, November  1988

By November 1988, the original 19 architecture firms that had shown interest in the law school project had been whittled down to four. The final selection would take place after presentations by each company during a Charrette, a 36-hour around-the-clock architectural competition. The four finalists were Mariani & Associates, James Stuart Polshek and Partners, Keyes Condon Florance Architects, and Shalom Baranes Associates Architects.

The real purpose of the Charrette was twofold: 1) It was an opportunity for the law school and the architects to get to know one another, and 2) It revealed each architecture firm’s understanding of the law school’s requirements. The product of the Charrette would be a sample of each firm’s interpretation.

The renderings each firm prepared for display at the end of the process were not intended to be a formal design, but rather a representation of how each firm would fulfill the Building Committee’s requirements.

To help visualize organizational patterns and relationships among working groups, the law school staff must reflect carefully on how the operation of one department is dependent upon another for efficient management. These organizational relationships then can be explained and demonstrated to the architect. 

The typical way in which architects choose to work with this information is to prepare a bubble diagram. A bubble diagram is a series of circles, rectangles, or squares, each of which represents an area or operation of the law school. They are drawn in varying dimensions, each being proportionately larger or smaller depending upon the square footage requested for the space in the program. The architect uses bubble diagrams to visualize how the departments will be organized to function most efficiently.

 The schematic phase places segments of the building on floors, determined by the program, which meet the budget, mechanical and structural requirements. 

It is at this phase that the space requirements for each department will be massed together into logical units and assigned to various floor locations according to the relationship of spaces on the bubble diagram. It is largely through this massing of square footage that the building begins to take shape. This concept of designing a building by massing logical operating units together is referred to in building design jargon as “form follows function,” which means that the overall design of a building will be dictated by the size and location of the spaces allocated for individual operations.

Architects frequently engage interior designers to help decorate and furnish the law school’s interior spaces. To begin the process, the Building Committee may discuss acceptable building interior finishes, color palettes, and furniture possibilities with the designer. 

The results of such discussions should not conclude with the building committee’s making positive, irreversible decorating decisions. On the contrary, the conversation should open up many different paths for the interior designer to please the committee and the institution. It wastes valuable time for the designer to focus on imported marble when the building committee has envisioned domestic American stone all along.

While undergoing this give and take design process, it can be helpful to visit institutions which have incorporated decor similar to what the interior designer and building committee have under consideration. Walking about in such a space can help the committee visualize how its own new installation might look upon completion. 

An interior designer’s technical knowledge of light and color can guide a planning team through the selection of colors and finishes. Interior designers generally agree that the “color” can effect how people use a space.

The design and color of furniture and equipment also plays a large role in decor. Furniture and other building trappings can detract easily from the building committee’s goal if they do not harmonize with the overall appearance of the building and cannot be maintained easily.

The library staff jumped at the opportunity to cast off its Naugahyde upholstered reading room chairs and cramped study carrels and was extremely pleased when the interior designers recommended more upscale lines of library furniture,  finally settling on Thos. Moser Cabinetmakers of Auburn, Maine.

It is with great pride that we offer this prototype carrel to The Catholic University of America.  It is designed to function as an archetypal design statement for the Columbus School of Law library interior.  The scale, form, materials and finish are to serve as models for what might constitute much of the library’s furniture. -Thos. Moser

All Columbus Carrels came equipped with an electrical wire harness which included several power outlets, a network data plug connection and a surge protector. Each carrel also was equipped with a task light. Another unique component of the carrel was the laser-engraved seal of the University.

Selecting Thos. Moser Cabinetmakers to supply the library tables, carrels and chairs and ordering other building furniture and equipment from an array of quality manufacturers allowed the law school to achieve one of the main objectives of the building’s program statement: upgrading the appearance of the school and creating a more professional atmosphere, almost a corporate feel throughout the law building – something that could never have been achieved in Leahy Hall.