Over in Cincinnati they
use massive irregular shapes with no real hierarchy to particular parts within
the building in elevation, but a look at their site plan shows that they have
set their buildings in a manner that guides you into the main entrance for the
building.
 |
In the case of Drexel University, they have the tower above the entrance to the building.
 |
| Over at the Eureka Site they have a very flat elevation with the hierarchy in the small cantilevering structures shown above in a lighter grey. |
 |
In the case study located in France at the Saint Cloud, their hierarchy lays in the towers on the edges of the building that encase either gymnasiums or a large rock climbing wall. Also the hierarchy exists with colors that once inside guest don’t feel lost but know where to go through the colored panes of glass that can be seen.
 |
| In this structure, the hierarchy stands out in the distance as that large tower that holds the gyms, and conference areas. |
|
|
|
I think you are off to a good start with your hierarchy investigations. The observations you have made are all, in fact, accurate. From the point where you have started, you need to really define for yourself what hierarchy in architecture means. To apply it to external massing is a valid approach. Even so, you are missing key massing cues in these buildings. The Cincinnati building, for example, has an extremely regimented hierarchy although the forms are "irregular." There is a spine, outlying wings, foreground and background, sloped and vertical masses. That is just from looking at the photos. To understand the hierarchy, and thus the logic of the assembly of a project, you must synthesize many aspects of the organizational system into your analysis. The programmatic deployment, the plan, the sectional relationships, the massing, adjacencies, materiality, transparency/opacity and site planning all affect the hierarchy of the project. The interrelationships of the elements that make up the character of the spaces, tension, flow, etc. which defines the pecking order.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoy reading about your ideas on hierarchy, but I would also like to see them in diagrams - either marked over the images or diagrams along side.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jill, diagrams would be helpful. I would also suggest a series of photos that cover the dominant lines of approach or visability. If the site and/or urban context has been considered successfully, the dominent hierarchy may be different based on angle of approach. This happens quite often with large recreational facilities with multiple access points and large park/parking area surrounds. Approach to given areas within the facility may be prominent on one side and hidden from view on the other (i.e., the swimming pool may be a dominent feature on one side/angle of approach, and not even visible on the side that houses the library/gym/rink)...or not...designer descretion.
ReplyDeleteAfter reviewing these images at a later point in time, I see that some work should be done to make them more understanding for the purpose of this assignment. I noticed that their pools tend to be far off from the entry and not essentially connected to the main entrances in basically all of the structures, as you mentioned hierarchy can exist for any structure in a particular angle and can easily be lost in a different perspective.
Delete