rummet och r ä t te n 617 fire-proof archives, lunchrooms and closets for personnel and generous premises for the panel of lay assessors. However, one group of users which had not been identified in the planning process was the secretaries of the administration service. Judging from drawings only, these women seem not to have been present in the buildings. In reality, however, they would sometimes constitute a majority of the employees. Although the planning process after the Second World War exposed discernable relations between function and form, mainly consisting in detailed building briefs and better-suited structures, designs did not set out from precise ideas of what a court should look like. Even at this point, the conception was based on a range of ideas of style and appropriateness, not on an articulated and specific courthouse architecture. However radically implemented, the idea of separation was neither new, nor unique for court buildings. Indeed, the very wording in the legal provision from1734 can be considered an example of such strivings, as can the attempts by 19th and early 20th century architects to modify conventional structures.The habits of court-house users only gradually concurred with the representations of court-house space. In practice, the buildings were more multi-functional and the social patterns and routines more durable than the conceptions behind new architectural designs had assumed. Space and court – conclusion Rummet Och Rätten t i ng shu s s om f öre st ä l l n i ng, byggnad och rum i användn i ng 17 34 - 197 0
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=