Skip to main content



Marching Order | Showroom

application

In showrooms, Marching Order organizes the placement of products and interior furnishings such as furniture, partitions and display units. In some cases, architectural elements such as columns and walls may be utilized to enhance or regulate the spatial order of the products and furnishings. 

research

Marching Order is frequently implemented in large, open-plan showrooms, where it is used as a strategy to divide the vast space into smaller modules and to organize product within it, although how it is implemented is dependent on the type and scale of product being displayed. In clothing showrooms, it is common to see the interior archetype expressed as the partitioning of space for buyers' booths, while in furniture showrooms it is more common to see Marching Order used to organize the product itself. Its expression in showrooms is also often used as a way to direct circulation without the use of opaque, full-height partitions; the frequency with which showrooms are redesigned suggests that this is a more cost-effective and flexible strategy.

Although similar to the Intype Lineup,1 Marching Order is a principle for the organization of space while Lineup is used solely for the display and organization of objects. Additionally, Marching Order requires a series of repeating forms, while Line-Up requires that the objects all be different, despite being of the same type.

History

The archetype Marching Order has its origins in the structure of buildings themselves. It was likely inspired by the columned temples of ancient Egypt, Persia, and Greece. In earlier civilizations, as well as in those without access to stone, room size was limited by building material. Sun-dried mud-brick, while more than sufficient for personal-dwelling-sized structures, was not ideal for anything grander, especially if high or arched ceilings were involved. As Sir Banister Fletcher explains in A History of Architecture, "Rooms had to be narrow in relation to their length, with massively thick walls," in order to accommodate these qualities. Thus, early temples and shrines of the ancient Near East (c6000-5000 BC), such as those at Catal Hüyük in modern day Turkey, were composed of many small rooms and enclosures, instead of the larger volumes of later Egyptian and Greek temples.2

The use of the stone structural column allowed buildings to become larger, both in perceived area, and in height. The previous requirement of structural walls on the interior of buildings meant that large structures needed to be partitioned into much smaller rooms or risk collapse. The ancient Egyptians and Greeks discovered that structural walls could be replaced by structural columns. Because columns do not give the same sense of continuous enclosure as walls, they allowed the temples to be read as one or two large volumes, rather than the dozens of small rooms typical of earlier temples. At the same time, the verticality of the columns implied a division of the larger space into smaller partitions closer to human scale. As Francis D.K. Ching explained in Architecture, Form, Space & Order, "Vertical forms have a greater presence in our visual field than horizontal elements and are therefore more instrumental in defining a discrete volume of space and providing a sense of enclosure and privacy for those within it."3

These structural columns had another unexpected effect: "The orderly rows of columns also punctuat[ed] the spatial volume," establishing a "measurable rhythm"4 for those who moved through the space. This rhythm was defined by the size and spacing of the columns; wider columns spaced far apart suggested a slower, more ceremonial rhythm, while narrow columns closely spaced suggested quicker procession. In some cases, columns interacted with other elements, such as light, to enhance this regimented rhythm. The ruins of the Great Hypostyle Hall of the Amun-Re Temple in Karnak, Egypt, although not originally intended to be open-air, currently demonstrate the rhythmic interaction of columns and light. When the sun's rays are parallel to the rows of columns, bands of light are created such that anyone moving in the right direction passes through evenly spaced, alternating bands of light and shadow, enhancing the rhythm of the columns.

It is from this rhythmic repetition that Marching Order is derived. As Fletcher asserted, "The architecture of ancient Greece was the essential origin of European architecture." In the case of Marching Order, the rigid and regular placement of structural columns often meant that non-structural walls or furnishings needed to be placed around the columns, or at least placed in consideration of the existing column placement. With advances in technology in the 20th century and the popularity of the open space plan, non-structural walls and furnishings could be placed anywhere in the space. However, spatial organization often defaulted to the rhythmic and regimented grid type. As John Pile put it, "geometric order is a basic human need desired in any planned situation," because "a desire for stability, repeatability and reliability, make it desirable to give these abstractions [of organization] more tangible forms."6

In effect, Marching Order as a spatial organization strategy can be expressed in two different ways. In many showroom installations, it is a manifestation of a linear organizational scheme; the repetitive element proceeds along one side of a long, narrow space, while a patron circulates along the opposite side, which has been left open. The vertical forms created by the repetitive elements serve to "separate one space from another and establish a common boundary," effectively partitioning the space into smaller, more human-scaled zones. Meanwhile, because they also spread out horizontally, "the impulse is to follow along beside" them, enticing the patron to venture further into the space like "a street that defines a space and as it stretches away before us entices us to follow along with it." If the vertical planes are thick enough, directional spaces are created and patrons are invited "to enter through the ends" of the space "as if seeking an entrance ‘around the corner,' which where the interior will meet [them]."7 Because the vertical elements that partition the space need to be of a certain height, this expression of Marching Order is inherently less flexible.

In other showroom installations, Marching Order is a manifestation of a grid organization. As Ching explained, "projected into the third dimension, the grid pattern is transformed into a set of repetitive, modular units of space." In this set up, faux architectural elements or square display modules are often accordingly arranged in the center of the showroom space, where their placement "establishes a stable set or field of reference points and lines in space with which the spaces of a grid organization, although dissimilar in size, form, or function, can share a common relationship."8 This strategy allows furnishings and products to be organized in such a way that true partition walls are not needed, as the positioning of the product itself divides the showroom into modular units of space. The advantages of this expression of Marching Order are two-fold. Firstly, the grid can be easily adapted to the requirements of the showroom; display elements can be added or subtracted and the scale of the grid can be changed to accommodate the amount of product the showroom needs to display. Secondly, the gridded expression of Marching Order allows visitor to circulate all the way around the displays, while encouraging them to create their own meandering circulation path.9

Marching Order has previously been identified in two other practice types: retail design, where it was first identified, and workplace design. In retail design it is used primarily as a strategy for organizing product and display, while in workplace design it is used as a strategy to organize the placement of interior furnishings, such as desks.10 

In showroom design, Marching Order is used primarily as a strategy for partitioning larger spaces into smaller exhibit displays or buyers booths. For this reason, it is most often found in large, open plan showrooms. On occasion, Marching Order can be used to organize the product on display (most commonly clothing or textiles). However, this is not widely practiced in showroom design, because of the need to display all available types of products. The variation of size and design among products of a certain scale (e.g. furniture) make it difficult to establish any sort of repetitive spatial rhythm using only the merchandise.

Chronological Sequence

Because Marching Order has such a long history as an ubiquitous spatial organization strategy, it is likely that it can be found throughout the history of showroom design. However, due to the lack of documentation of showrooms between the decade of 1930 (when the modern trade showrooms began) and the 1960 decade (when Interior Design and Architectural Record began actively publishing showroom installations), Marching Order for the purposes of this thesis will only be traced back to the 1960 period.

The Kate Greenaway showroom designed by Gerhard E. Karplus in 1960 used Marching Order to organize its five sales booths against one wall of the space. Each identical booth was separated by "floating dividers of walnut and white Formica with panels covered in alternating gray and white Victrex," from which different dresses can be displayed to customers.  In each booth, three Saarinen tulip chairs "alternate French blue, gold, and red."11 A rectangular light fixture was centered over each booth. The booths subdivided the showroom into smaller modules of a more intimate scale; buyers inside the booths were not meant to perceive other customers, giving the impression that they, and they alone, were being served. Additionally, the placement of the booths in repetitive sequence against a wall created a rhythm along the length of the space, regulating the speed at which its patrons process through it.

The 1962 Jonathan Logan showroom in New York took an almost identical approach to its predecessor, using Marching Order to organize its buyer's booths along one side of the showroom. Instead of using fully opaque screens, however, designer Mary Ponsart used metal dividers perforated with a lace-like pattern. The perforated dividers, despite being less visually solid, still divided the space in a regimented manner. While it was unclear whether the Marching Order of the 1960 Kate Greenaway showroom was a deliberate strategy or merely a convenient and easy design solution, the Marching Order organization of the buying booths in the Jonathan Logan 1962 showroom was intentional. A neutral "pale putty" color was used on walls, floors and furniture: "a new concept in showroom design to display to the greatest advantage the colors and fashions of dress collections," while the "uncluttered buyer's booths and reception area" are arranged with "smart simplicity."12 In this instance, the entire showroom was kept clean and simple in color and organization to maximize the impact of the products for sale.

By the 1970 decade showroom iterations of Marching Order had not really changed, being employed primarily as an organizational strategy for the buyer's booths that were common of showrooms at that time. The 1971 showroom for Butte Knits by Frank Schwind was no different. Identical buyer's booths lined one wall of the showroom. However, this time instead of having undecorated walls or doors on the plane opposite to the booths, the expression of Marching Order was mimicked through the placement of clothing display units that ran parallel to them. In the Jonathan Logan showroom next door, however, the clothing display case itself was used as the expression of Marching Order in the space. Also designed by Frank Schwind as part of a trio of spaces for the company, the showroom featured series of display cases running down the middle of the showroom so as to be "accessible from both sides." The long cases were regularly partitioned by panels of "gray acrylic"13 so that a regular rhythm infused the length of the narrow space. 

In the 1980 decade, expressions of Marching Order began to gain more variety. While the 1980 Rafael sport showroom by James D'Auria initially seemed identical to showrooms of previous decades with its buyer's booths aligned against one wall, the Marching Order of the booths was architecturally mimicked on the opposite wall. The objective for the space was to "create a sense of privacy within each showing area without creating a series of enclosed cubicles" while "providing storage for the clothing samples out of buyer view in order to allow for the presentation of the line in an orderly sequence." The solution placed the sales offices along the showroom wall, projecting them diagonally into the space.  This created "a series of alcoves that visually break up the long tunnel effect of the space."14 The buyers' alcoves and clothing display screens were centered along these diagonal protrusions, enhancing the effect of Marching Order as the space narrowed and widened.

By the late 1980s, it became evident to designers and architects that they could apply the principle of Marching order to showrooms in the same way that they had been doing in traditional retail design. Thus, Marching Order became a method not just for organizing space, but also for organizing products. The 1988 Allsteel showroom at the Pacific Design Center in Los Angeles took a similar approach to the Rafael Sport showroom as glass panels protruded into the entry space in a ziggurat form. At each corner of the glass that jutted into the space, was a single office chair, prominently displayed on a plinth. The visual and spatial rhythm set up as one entered the space culminated in the sight of "an intricately crafted desk" that served as the showroom's reception desk and as "its main focal point from the PDC corridor and an organic contrast to the larger space's inherently hard-edged sleekness."15 In this installation, Marching Order created a sense of ceremonial procession heightening the drama of the space. The sparse placement of the product not only visually punctuated the spatial rhythm set up by the glass panels, but also offered a preview of the products in the main area of the showroom.

Marching Order continued to be used as a strategy for organizing product into the 1990 decade, although in showrooms it was still primarily used as a spatial organization technique. The 1992 United Chair showroom by Thomas Gass at the Pacific Design Center used both approaches to great effect. "Cord-strung curtains" were hung at regular intervals on both sides of the showroom, partitioning the long space into smaller areas more appropriate for the scale of the furniture. Inside each little exhibit booth, sat a solitary chair, illuminated by a spotlight suspended from the "skeletal rib cage" of lighting that ran through the center of the space. The space's symmetry and repetitive rhythm was a deliberate strategy to "instantly elicit understanding of the entire layout inside" while "marry[ing] the product with the space" to "draw visitors inward to view the product array."16

For clothing showrooms, however, the old standby of Marching Order as buyer's booths remained popular, although some new techniques were employed. The 1997 Sigrid Olsen showroom by James D'Auria had a spatial organization very similar to that of clothing showrooms of the 1960 era, although "the prevailing approach to apparel display has significantly changed." While showroom design evolved from the 1960s to be part of "a portable merchandising package" required to "serve many multifaceted objectives," the need for buying areas remained the same. The solution was that the showroom contained many varied areas, such as a shop display area and a conference area instead of just one area for the viewing and purchasing of product. It was in the showroom proper that the familiar buying booths appeared. The panel system that defined the Marching Order for Sigrid Olsen consisted of "ten-foot by eight-foot metal frames with either open or glazed grids, and lined inside with cherry wood strips." Additionally, there were "independently operable casement fabrics just behind the gliding screens" that allowed the buyer's booths to be completely visually screened. The moveable dividers created a Marching Order in the showroom when pushed out, dividing the showroom into as many (or as few) different spaces as required to accommodate "two to 25 visiting buyers".17

The 2006 Janus et Cie showroom in Houston, Texas used Marching Order to break up what was "a 5,500-square-foot drywall box, dead center in the atrium at the Decorative Center Houston." To partition the space, the design team created over-sized display shelves, which merged the product and the architecture of the space. The "eleven-foot-tall units... serve not only as perfect little stages for individual chairs, but also as dividers between vignettes" which "run down either side of a central aisle, an allée punctuated by faux topiaries." The separation of vignettes de-cluttered the showroom. The use of Specimen (Intype)18 to display the company's array of chairs gave the showroom a museum gallery-like quality that allowed the product a permanent presence on the occasions founder and president Janice Feldman cleared away some of the vignettes to host "lavish 40-person dinners"19 in the showroom. In this instance, Marching Order did not create a ceremonial procession through the space; rather it divided the showroom into smaller, evenly sized areas for the display of various furniture vignettes.

The S. Oliver showroom at Labels 2 in Berlin, Germany used a similar approach to organize its showroom space. S. Oliver is one of several fashion apparel showrooms within Labels 2. The interior of the building facility, designed by HHF Architekten, was "intentionally antibourgeois," consisting of concrete punctuated by parabolic arches. Non-load-bearing partitions "angle across the floor plates to separate the showrooms." Designed for flexibility, the partitions were easily reconfigured as "tenants constantly reconsider their space needs." Businesses occupy the building as they would a loft, "making very few design gestures at additional cost."20 Thus, interventions in the space were minimal and multi-functional. S. Oliver's solution created display racks that also acted as spatial dividers. The dividers, of equal size and materiality, were evenly spaced down the length of the showroom. To view the clothing, one entered the row of display units, circulating among and around them. This lengthened the amount of time patrons spent in the showroom, enticing them to zig-zag their way through the space rather than walking straight through to the other end.

Despite its various iterations in showrooms over the years, Marching Order remained fundamentally constant in its expression through the 2010 decade.21

end notes

  1. 1) The Intype Lineup describes a series of four or more items of the same type but different design that are arranged evenly spaced along the same floor plane against a continuous back surface. Courtney Cheng, "Theory Studies: Archetypical Showroom Practices in Contemporary Interior Design" (M.A. Thesis, Cornell University, 2011), xx-xx; The Intypes Research and Teaching Project, http://www.intypes.cornell.edu/intypesub.cfm?inTypeID=133 (accessed Oct. 14, 2011).
  2. 2) Sir Banister Fletcher, A History of Architecture, 19th Ed., ed. John Musgrove (London: Butterworths, 1987), 19, 29-31.
  3. 3) Francis D.K. Ching, Architecture, Form, Space & Order, 2nd Ed., (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996), 120.
  4. 4) Precinct of Amun-Re, Karnak Temple Complex [1391-1351 BC] Anonymous Architect; Karnak, Egypt; Site Visit, Courtney Cheng, 27 May 2009. PhotoCrd: Courtney Cheng, Intypes Project, 27 May 2009.
  5. 5) Fletcher, A History of Architecture, 3; John Pile, Interiors: Second Book of Offices (New York: Whitney Library of Design, 1969), 9, 261.
  6. 6) Ching, Architecture, Form, 120; Thomas Thiis-Evensen, Archteypes in Architecture, (Oxford: Norwegian University Press, 1987), 143.
  7. 7) Ching, Architecture, Form, 220-21.
  8. 8) Hickory Business Furniture Showroom [1987] Vanderbyl Design, architect; Chicago, IL in Monica Geran, "Hickory Business Furniture," Interior Design 58, no. 1 (Jan. 1987): 262; PhotoCrd: Sadin Photo Group, Ltd.; Artimide Showroom [1985] Vignelli Associates, architect; Dallas, TX in Edie Lee Cohen, "Artimide," Interior Design 56, no. 6 (Jun. 1985): 119; PhotoCrd: Paul Warchol.
  9. 9) Leah Scolere, "Theory Studies: Contemporary Retail Design" (M.A. Thesis, Cornell University, 2004), 58-62; Shuqing Yin, "Theory Studies: Archetypical Workplace Practices in Contemporary Interior Design" (M.A. Thesis, Cornell University, 2011), 69-88.
  10. 10) Kate Greenaway Showrooms [1960] Gerhard E. Karplus, architect; New York City in Anonymous, "Showrooms," Interior Design 31, no. 10 (Oct. 1960): 225; PhotoCrd: Ben Schnall.
  11. 11) Jonathan Logan, Inc. Showroom [1962] Mary Ponsart, architect; New York City in Anonymous, "Showrooms," Interior Design 33, no. 10 (Oct. 1962): 216; PhotoCrd: Anonymous.
  12. 12) Butte Knits Showroom & Jonathan Logan, Inc. Showroom [1971] Frank Schwind, architect; New York City in Anonymous, "Design in Fashion," Interior Design 42, no. 4 (Apr. 1971):  142-43; PhotoCrd: Anonymous.
  13. 13) Rafael Sport Showroom [1980] James D'Auria, architect; Unknown Location in F.K., "Rafael Sport," Interior Design 51, no. 1 (Jan. 1980): 238-39; PhotoCrd: Tom Yee.
  14. 14) Allsteel Showroom [1988] Gensler, architect; Los Angeles, CA in Jerry Cooper, "Allsteel," Interior Design 59, no. 10 (Jul. 1988): 202-206; PhotoCrd: Toshi Yoshimi.
  15. 15) United Chair Showroom [1992] Thomas Gass, architect; Los Angeles, CA in Monica Geran, "United Chair," Interior Design 63, no. 3 (Feb. 1992): 112-13; PhotoCrd: Toshi Yoshimi.
  16. 16) Sigrid Olsen Showroom [1997] James D'Auria, architect; New York City in Monica Geran, "The Portrait of a Lady," Interior Design 68, no. 5 (Apr. 1997): 188-191; PhotoCrd: Durston Saylor.
  17. 17) The Intype Specimen describes a display strategy in which items are arranged in a taxonomic array. Courtney Cheng, "Theory Studies: Archetypical Showroom Practices in Contemporary Interior Design" (M.A. Thesis, Cornell University, 2012), 160-85; The Intypes Research and Teaching Project, http://www.intypes.cornell.edu/intypesub.cfm?inTypeID=120 (accessed Oct. 14, 2011).
  18. 18) Janus et Cie Showroom [2006] Peter Jay Zweig Architects, architect; Houston, TX in Edie Cohen, "Garden of Earthly Delights," Interior Design 77, no. 3 (Mar. 2006): 134; PhotoCrd: Jorge Castillo.
  19. 19) S. Oliver Showroom in Labels 2 [2010] HHF Architekten, architect; Berlin, Germany in David Sokol, "Dress For Success," Interior Design 81, no. 1 (Jan. 2010): 197-203; PhotoCrd: Christian Gahl.
  20. 20) Evidence for the archetypical use and the chronological sequence of Marching Order in the showroom practice type was developed from the following sources: 1960 Kate Greenaway Showrooms [1960] Gerhard E. Karplus, architect; New York City in Anonymous, "Showrooms," Interior Design 32, no. 10 (Oct. 1960): 225; PhotoCrd: Ben Schnall; Jonathan Logan, Inc. Showroom [1962] Mary Ponsart, architect; New York City in Anonymous, "Showrooms," Interior Design 33, no. 10 (Oct. 1962): 216; PhotoCrd: Anonymous / 1970 Butte Knit Showroom [1971] Frank Schwind, architect; New York City in Anonymous, "Design in Fashion," Interior Design 42, no. 4 (Apr. 1971): 143; PhotoCrd: Anonymous; Jonathan Logan, Inc. Showroom [1971] Frank Schwind, architect; New York City in Anonymous, "Design in Fashion," Interior Design 42, no. 4 (Apr. 1971): 142; PhotoCrd: Anonymous / 1980 Rafael Sport Showroom [1980] James D'Auria, architect; Anonymous Location in F.K., "Rafael Sport," Interior Design 51, no. 1 (Jan. 1980): 239; PhotoCrd: Tom Yee; Artimide Showroom [1985] Vignelli Associates, architect; Dallas, TX in Edie Lee Cohen, "Artimide," Interior Design 56, no. 6 (Jun. 1985): 119; PhotoCrd: Paul Warchol; Hickory Business Furniture Showroom [1987] Vanderbyl Design, architect; Chicago, IL in Monica Geran, "Hickory Business Furniture," Interior Design 58, no. 1 (Jan. 1987): 262; PhotoCrd: Sadin Photo Group, Ltd; Allsteel Showroom [1988] Gensler, architect; Los Angeles, CA in Jerry Cooper, "Allsteel," Interior Design 59, no. 10 (Jul. 1988): 202; PhotoCrd: Toshi Yoshimi / 1990 United Chair Showroom [1992] Thomas Gass, architect; Los Angeles, CA in Monica Geran, "United Chair," Interior Design 63, no. 3 (Feb. 1992): 112, 113; PhotoCrd: Toshi Yoshimi; Sigrid Olsen Showroom [1997] James D'Auria, architect; New York City in Monica Geran, "The Portrait of a Lady," Interior Design 68, no. 5 (Apr. 1997): 190; PhotoCrd: Durston Saylor / 2000 Janus et Cie Showroom [2006] Peter Jay Zweig Architects, architect; Houston, TX in Edie Cohen, "Garden of Earthly Delights," Interior Design 77, no. 3 (Mar. 2006): 134; PhotoCrd: Jorge Castillo; / 2010 S. Oliver Showroom in Labels 2 [2010] HHF Architekten, architect; Berlin, Germany in David Sokol, "Dress For Success," Interior Design 81, no. 1 (Jan. 2010): 200; PhotoCrd: Christian Gahl.

bibliographic citations

1) The Interior Archetypes Research and Teaching Project, Cornell University, www.intypes.cornell.edu (accessed month & date, year).

2) Cheng, Courtney. "Theory Studies: Archetypical Showroom Practices in Contemporary Interior Design." M.A. Thesis, Cornell University, 2012, 33-51.