Alexis J. Rodriguez
Arch.3610
Spring 2013
Assignment Four: Symmetry
There are basically two types of symmetry:
-Bilateral symmetry refers to the balanced arrangement of equivalent elements about
common axis.
-Radial symmetry consists of equivalent elements balanced about two or more axes
that interest at a central point.” - Architecture: Form, Space and Order. FK Ching
 |
| The Recreation Facility over in Arapahoe follows a radial symmetry from an imaginary point somewhere off in the back of the building. |
 |
| The Recreation facility located at the Blue Ash site follows a very clear bi-lateral symmetry pattern with similar masses on both sides of the structure. |
 |
| The Recreational Complex at Boise University is a broken down bi-lateral pattern that if we broke the structure down we'd be able to assemble a nearly perfect rectangle. |
 |
| In this example, it looks as though the structure is a mixture of both, moving both with a radial motion and having two strong masses represented side by side as a reflection. |
 |
| The example located in Cincinnati has a bi-lateral symmetry that is evident in the long wings that protrude outwards embracing all who enter the facility. |
 |
| Drexel University uses the a bilateral symmetry to execute their recreation center. |
 |
| The Recreation Center located in the town of Eureka uses the radial symmetry that is different from the one that they use over in Arapahoe, instead of every structure spinning off one point it uses one rigid structure and the nearby structure then seems to pull away from a point inside of the first structure. |
 |
| The Center in Ohio seems to duplicate the Center that was created in Cincinnati but they showed it on a much smaller scale. |
 |
| Over in France, at the Saint Cloud location they used bi-lateral symmetry which created the a box- stacking paradise. |
 |
| At the W. Chester Facility for Recreational Purposes they used a bi-lateral symmetry that also slides away from its other half. |
Observationally your symmetry identifications are spot-on. Push yourself to now clarify what the symmetry means in each case. Without intent, symmetry is no different from a found object. Look back at historical precedents in which symmetry was a driving factor and find the intent to unravel the implications. Then apply that to your precedents. Ultimately, use what you discover to actually inform your design endeavor.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andy above for the most part...being able to look at the building from a birds eye perspective to plot the symetry or hierarchy does not always reveal the 'experiential intent' of the designer's choice of one or the other, as a way of clarifying the building typology, form or circulation. I would also suggest looking at the possibility that in at least one -and arguably two- of the above cases, the designer appears to have used a dominant bilateral symetry and a secondary radial cluster, in this case using symetry to define the hierarchy of the spaces...a good way of establishing prominency of form...one could suppose that other examples may reveal similar traits at different scales as well.
ReplyDelete