Dichotomy of Private and Public
A comparison of the spacial character within the VitraHaus and the whole of the Vitra Campus
As a piece of architecture on a campus that has virtually
become an architecture museum, the VitraHaus fits in with its surroundings. The
question to ask, however, is what makes this possible. The Vitra Campus today
features works from very well-known architects including Gehry, Hadid, and
Ando, and Herzog & de Meuron’s 2006 addition to this campus may at first
seem a confused heap of prisms, but the derivative of its form may come from
the campus itself. The VitraHuas, a combination of the archetypal house theme
and the stacking theme, reconciles the public space with the private space as
the Vitra Campus does in a comparable manner, and this method creates an effect
on visitors that is at once steering and welcoming.
The
purpose of the VitraHaus was to have interior space with which Vitra could
display its newly launched Home Collection. As one might conclude by the
collection’s title, Vitra required space that summoned that feeling of welcome
and comfort that a private house can provide, while also acting as a public
space to provide circulation amongst the product displays. To satisfy these
requirements, architects Herzog and de Meuron harnessed two themes: the
archetypal house, hence the pentagonal prisms, and the theme of stacked
volumes, hence this prisms sitting atop and poking through each other. Herzog
and de Meuron studied a variety of typical house sections, arranging and
connecting theme to create spaces that could at once feel homey and still be
navigable between each space. The result
is a somewhat informal plan constructed using informal themes.
This
informality contrasts with the formal plan and architecture used for the entire
Vitra Campus, but the reconciliation of public and private spaces is similar.
Both the VitraHaus and the Vitra Campus must make a separation between public
space meant for circulation and movement and private space meant for pausing
and habitation, however long-term or momentary. Both this building and the
campus are essentially defined as public places, but both contain moments of
privacy. On the other hand, using the archetypal house and the action of
stacking is more informal than the regulated pathways and structural locations
that render the plan of the campus more formal.
This
difference in formality creates a dissimilar effect on the character of the
spaces. While a visitor to the campus will feel the open freedom of the outdoor
paths between buildings, they will feel a palpable change in this as they come
upon a crossroads and must allow themselves to be directed to a location, or as
they enter inside a building and become confined within it. A visitor to the
VitraHaus will feel a less palpable change in traversing between public and
private spaces within because of the informal planning and form to both; the
lack of formality lends itself to greater ease of habitation and of
circulation. Naturally, comfort of potential customers amongst their Home
Collection products would have been important to Vitra; the success of Herzog
and de Meuron’s blending of public circulation space with private habituation
space within the VitraHouse meant the optimization of visitor comfort and
display circulation, and it may have been the informal character to these
spaces that was the deciding factor in their achievement of this purpose.
Source:
Basulto, David. "VitraHaus/Herzog & de Meuron." ArchDaily. . http://www.archdaily.com/50533/vitrahaus-herzog-de-meuron/ (accessed October 26, 2012).
No comments:
Post a Comment