BAÜ FBE Dergisi

Cilt:9, Sayı:1, 3-18

Temmuz 2007

Type and typology in architectural discourse

Yasemin Đ. GÜNEY*
Balıkesir University Faculty of Architecture and Engineering,
Department of Architecture Çağış BALIKESĐR

Abstract
Typology is the comparative study of physical or other characteristics of the built
environment into distinct types. In this paper, the historical transformation of type and
typology concepts since the Enlightenment has been examined in three developing
stages based on methodological and historical interpretation: The first
conceptualization developed out of the rationalist philosophy of the Enlightenment, the
second relates to the modernist ideology and the last to Neo-Rationalism after the
1960s. The study aims to highlight the significance of the concepts of type and typology
that are so rich in tradition and so important for intellectual history, and that could aid
in enhancing our understanding of architecture within its historical and socio-cultural
contexts. A discussion of type and typology can promote a way of looking at the built
environment, that can not only help us recognize and discover basic types but also
enhance our ability to see the differences as well as similarities among architectural
artifacts by recognizing the invisible connections between them.

Keywords: Type, typology, architecture, architectural theory, architectural history.

Mimarlık kuramlarında tip ve tipoloji kavramları

Özet
Tipoloji, nesneleri fiziksel ya da diğer özelliklerine dayanarak tiplere ayırmak için
yapılan çalışmalara verilen addır. Tarihte ilk kez Aydınlanma Çağı’nda önem kazanan
tipolojik yaklaşım, günümüzde mantıksal-matematiksel bilimlerle sosyo-kültürel bilimler
arasında, ortak amaçları çerçevesinde iletişimi sağlayabilen önemli bir bakış açısı
konumundadır. Bu yazıda, mimarlık söyleminde yer alan tip ve tipoloji kuramları,
ortaya çıktıkları üç ayrı tarihsel düzlemde incelenmiştir. Mimarlık alanında ilk tip
kuramı yine Aydınlanma Çağı’nda ortaya atılırken, ikinci kuram Modernist ideolojiye,
üçüncü kuram ise Neo-Rasyonel yaklaşıma dayanarak oluşturulmuştur. Bu çalışmanın
amacı, entellektüel tarihte çok önemli bir yer tutan tip ve tipoloji kavramlarının,
mimarlığı ve mimarlığın içinde bulunduğu tarihsel ve sosyo-kültürel etkenleri
anlamamız için önemini vurgulamaktır. Yazıda ayrıca, mimarlık disiplininde tip ve
tipoloji kavramlarının tartışılmaya devam edilmesinin gerekliliği de vurgulanmaktadır.
Bu tartışmalar, sadece mimari nesneleri basit tiplere ayırmaktan öte, bunlar arasındaki
görünmeyen bağların farkedilerek, aralarındaki ilişkilerin daha iyi kavramasına
yardımcı olabilecek bir bakış açısı oluşumu için gerekli ve önemlidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Tip, tipoloji, mimarlık, mimarlık kuramları, mimarlık tarihi.

*
Yasemin I. GÜNEY, [email protected], [email protected]
This study is based on the author’s doctoral studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI, USA,
which was completed in 2005. The author would like to thank Prof. Anatole Senkewitch of University of
Michigan for his invaluable help in writing this paper.
Makalenin basım kararı 03.05.2007 tarihinde alınmıştır.

3
 Y. Đ. Güney

1. Introduction

Typological thought refers to the whole, to the manifold relationships among things, to
the extreme and at the same time the harmonious. Đt is a way of thinking that does not
refer to the age but to the place. A place at which borders and opposites melt together
into an intellectual universal [1].

When one thinks of how we make sense of our daily life, one can easily recognize the
significance of the notion of type in understanding and clarifying the commonalities and
differences between various phenomena within the immense world of existence. As
Franck and Schneekloth say “types and ways of typing are used to produce and
reproduce the material world and to give meaning to our place in it” [2]. The notion of
type underlies all logical inferences that help one to classify the phenomena, to put them
in groups based on their similarities, as well as to make distinctions between them. This
act of classification enables multiplicity to turn into unity, which at the same time
generates reasoning and knowledge.

The first period when the notion of type gains its significance was the eighteenth
century also known as the Age of Enlightenment. During this period, the
Enlightenment thinkers, inspired by Newton’s revolution in physics, argued that
systematic thinking could be applied to all forms of human activity. Đt is in this period
that the first encyclopedias in various disciplines were written with the aim of
classifying rational information. Some of the most important and influential writings of
the Enlightenment were published during this time. These include the following three
main texts: Encyclopedie (1751) edited by Denis Diderot and Jean le Rond d’Alembert
and compiled by the group called the Encyclopẻdistes; Baron de La Brede et de
Montesquieu's Esprit des lois (The Outline of a Modern Political Science-1748); and
Jean Jacques Rousseau's the Discours sur des sciences et les arts (Discourse on the
Origin and Foundation of Đnequality Among Mankind-1755).

Within architectural discourse, the first typological approach developed out of the
rationalist philosophy of the Enlightenment as can be found with the French
archeologist and art writer Quatremẻre de Quincy in his work Encyclopẻdie (1789).
The result of this corpus of work has since been influential and it has become the
subject of debate in architectural discourse of the twentieth century. But within the
modernist architectural discourse, the concept of type suffered a loss of significance.
For example, in modernism the notion of type was reduced to the notion of stereotype.
However, we see a reemergence of the significance of type and typology during the
1950s as reflected in the writings of Aldo Rossi, mainly The Architecture of the City
(1982).

This paper will review the understanding of type and typology as concepts within the
architectural discourse from the time of the Enlightenment. The examination of type
history is not a mere description of that history, but is intended to demonstrate that the
theory of typology could aid our understanding of architecture within its historical and
socio-cultural context. The paper also aims to highlight the significance of the concepts
of type and typology, which is so rich in tradition and so important in intellectual
history, for architectural discourse.

4
 Type and typology ın archıtectural dıscourse

2. Type and typology in general

Before going into the discussion of type and typology in architecture it would be helpful
to examine the etymological origin and meaning of the word ‘type.’ The root of the
word can be traced back to a Greek verb typto, meaning “to beat, to hit, to mark” [3]. Đn
addition, when the word typos became established in Greek, during the seventh and
sixth centuries BC, new meanings emerge such as relief, engraving, and seal.
Pertaining to numismatics, typos also denote the distinguishing figures or marks
engraved on the faces of a coin. After the development of printing in Europe in
fourteenth century, the meaning of the word expands to include the characters of the
alphabet engraved on a small rectangular metal or wood block used in printing. This
enlargement of the meaning might be considered as being due to the beating movement
of the printing machine that resembles the coin-minting process. One might consider
these metal or wood blocks, types, as prisons containing the letters of the alphabet.
Even more drastically, one might consider the feeling of imprisonment, containment, in
a sense that there is nothing to expect more, by the fact that each type can only produce
the predetermined end, the engraved letter of the alphabet.

When we look at the writings of philosophy and on psychology of perception, we see

that typos acquires a meaning close to that of “model,” describing a set of characteristics
necessarily present on a group of concrete individuals answering, that is, to the type.
One might infer that, here, the understanding of type suggests a pattern or a model after
which something is made. From this basic meaning, says Đtalian architectural historian
Tullio De Mauro, originate the extremely particular Pauline and Christian meanings of
exemplary figure-figuration [4]. Đn the Pauline and Christian reading of the Old
Testament, Adam is seen as the typos, exemplary figuration, of Jesus. Since the
fifteenth century, the word has been used in theology to signify the symbolical
representations of a person, an object, or an event of divine importance. The Oxford
dictionary definition of type reflects this understanding: “by which something is
symbolized or figured, anything having a symbolical signification, a symbol, or
emblem.” [3].

The term “typology” emerges around the mid-nineteenth century. According to De

Mauro, the emergence of the term “typology” is influenced by the renewal of interest in
abstract models during this time [4]. The term was used to refer to the study of types;
the comparative analysis and classification of structural or other characteristics into
types. Đt was first encountered in the field of theology, referring to the study of
symbolic representation of scripture types. Đn paleoethnology, typology referred to the
study of sets that are recognizable through the coherence determined by the repetition of
a single cultural type. Đn psychology and medicine, psychological and constitutional
types are examined, while in sociology the ideal types are being studied and became the
ordering principle of enquiries on multiform, concrete socio-cultural organizations.
Towards the mid-twentieth century, typological study becomes a basic way of thinking,
which enables a reciprocal communication between logical-mathematical sciences and
social and cultural sciences.

3. Type and typology in architecture

The historical transformation of type and typology concepts since the Enlightenment
has been examined in three developing stages based on methodological and historical

5
 Y. Đ. Güney

interpretation: The first conceptualization developed out of the rationalist philosophy of

the Enlightenment, the second relates to the modernist ideology and the last to Neo-
Rationalism after the 1960s. What follows is the examination of the theory of type and
typology in these three developing stages.

3.1. Type theory in enlightenment philosophy

The first typology developed out of the rationalist philosophy of the Enlightenment.
According to architectural historian Anthony Vidler, “like Newton in science, like
Locke in philosophy, like Rousseau in anthropology,” the architect of the
Enlightenment looked at the beginnings of shelter as the first type of habitation.
Đnitially formulated by abbé-Marc-Antoine Laugier (1713-96) in his Essai sur
l’architecture, this understanding of typology proposed a natural basis for architecture
to be found in the model of the primitive hut. The primitive hut in Laugier’s depiction
has rationalized elements and standards. He depicts the four trees as types of the first
columns, standing in a perfect square, the branches laid across in the form of beams,
perfectly horizontal, and the boughs bent over to form the roof as a triangle, as a
pediment (Figure 1). Đn other words, the primitive hut has been posited as the origin of
all possible forms of architecture, and thus the principle and measure of all architecture.

Taking the Rationalist stance from Laugier's work, Quatremére de Quincy (1755-1849)
conceived his critical theories of type in architecture during the last decades of the
eighteenth century. The notion of type shaped many of Quatremére de Quincy’s views
on fundamentals of architecture. Quatremére de Quincy symbolized architecture as an
imitation of nature. His theory of type is metaphorical and is well- known by his entry
“Type” in Encyclopedie Methodique of 1825. Đn his entry, Quatremére de Quincy said
type was a word with many nuances: it could be used to mean model, matrix, imprint,
mould, and figure in relief. Quatremére suggested that one of the roles of science and
philosophy is to examine the reasons for having so many different versions in each
genre.

Quatremére de Quincy tried to define the concept of type by comparing ‘model’ and
‘type.’ He defined ‘model’ as a mechanical reproduction of an object and ‘type’ as a
metaphorical entity. The model is a form to be copied or imitated: “all is precise and
given in the model”. Type, on the contrary, is something that can act as a basis for the
conception of works, which bear no resemblance to one another: “all is more or less
vague in the type” [5]. The architectural ‘type’ was at once ‘pre-existent germ,’ origin
and primitive cause [6].

Quatremére de Quincy’s metaphorical theory of type is the first theory introduced into
modern architectural discourse. Quatremére de Quincy’s conceptualization of type was
based on three concepts: origin, transformation and invention. Origin here refers to the
nature or essence of things. Unlike Laugier’s primitive hut, which he posited as the
origin of all architecture, Quatremére de Quincy’s origin is related to the understanding
of type as “the general form, structure, or character distinguishing a particular type,
group, or class of beings or objects” [3]. His aim was to make type more practical by
putting it into the context of use, need, and custom, among other factors, which directly
refers to the Enlightenment idea of charactere. The notion that certain types of
buildings become symbols of their functions by virtue of their charactere had been first
introduced into architectural theory by Germain Boffrand (1667-1754).

6
 Type and typology ın archıtectural dıscourse

According to Boffrand charactere is the expressive function of a building to

communicate with people, and “different buildings should, by their arrangement, their
construction and by the way in which they are decorated, proclaim their destination to
the observer” [7]. Đn Quatremére de Quincy’s words, character is “that each of the
principal buildings should find, in its fundamental purpose in the uses to which it is
given over, a type which is suitable for it” [5]. Based on the typological identity,
Quatremére de Quincy discussed distinct ‘mother tongues’ of architecture. Đn other
words, the architectural type in relation to the origin theory could be understood as
architectural etymology.

Quatremére de Quincy suggested imitation as the common starting point for any process
of artistic production. For him, imitation does not mean to ‘copy’ but rather to
‘represent’ the laws of nature. Đmitation is the basis for invention described as new
combinations of pre-existing elements through grasping the principles and spirit of
nature. Đn other words, imitation is the creative process that turns elements in nature
into visible artifacts. For architecture, invention means synthesizing the constructive,
formal, functional and ecological principles in nature through an original and
imaginative synthesis that creates the houses, temples, monuments and cities.

With Quatremére de Quincy’s work, the idea of type was explicitly and systematically
theorized for the first time in the history of architecture. Đt should also be noted that
Quatremére de Quincy's analysis of architectural precedents was the first one that went
beyond the limited scope of classical architecture; type became universal [8].
Nonetheless, Quatremére was not the only one to theorize about the idea of type around
this time, the time of Enlightenment, the French Revolution (1789) as well as the
Đndustrial Revolution. J. N. L. Durand (1760-1834) was also developing Laugier’s
principles like Quatremére, just not on the same lines.

Figure 1- Laugier’s primitive hut

(Source: March-Antoine Laugier (1977) An Essay on Architecture)

7
 Y. Đ. Güney

Durand, who was a professor of architecture at the Ecole Polytechnique [6], was greatly
influenced by the contemporary advancements in natural sciences, particularly those of
taxonomy and descriptive geometry. Durand employed the methods of comparative
taxonomy for the study of building forms where he enumerated a limited number of
inventories of building elements: pilasters, walls, and foundations. The result was his
major work, Recueil et parallele des edifices de tout genre (1801), a kind of
“typological atlas of architecture” [7]. Durand drew the plans, sections and façades of
all buildings to the same scale, with the same technique [9]. He stated that the
classification was both functional and morphological, “according to their kinds,
arranged in order of degree of likeness” [6]. His aim was to rigorously describe and
analyze form and geometry of architecture where the external attributes and outward
looking was disregarded (Figure 2). This indeed was a distinct separation from the
Enlightenment idea of charactere. Style was now seen as clothing for an otherwise
naked object, as a system of decoration. By putting together all different historical
styles next to each other, and so by eliminating the significance of any one of style,
Durand unconsciously reduced the precedents to an eclecticism of styles [6].

For Durand, the first aim of architecture was composition related specifically to
economic needs. Đn his lecture notes, Precis des Lecons (1802), Durand reduced the
form-making principles to its fundamental elements: the architectonic members, and the
disposition, the rules of composition. His work was one of the first to attempt to
disconnect the foundation of an architectural order from existing tradition towards an
autonomous architecture. Đn a table format, Durand presented the geometric
combinations to be used as a basis for various types of building plans. This table is
usually considered as representing geometric reduction. Wener Oechslin suggests that
this table “in actual facts it is used to make legible the connection between existing and
historically concrete typologies and the general form based on the laws of universal
geometry” [10]. Considering the new objectives of economy and construction in
addition to the idea of geometrical reduction, one might suggest that Durand's theory of
type was the first move towards the Modernist idea of prototype.

3.2. Type theory in modernist ideology

The modernist type theory is based on the changing social structure and the need for
mass production after the post-war era. This type theory focused on the production
process itself to find the model for architectural design. The reconstruction of post-war
Germany, where the modernist ideas emerged, was controlled by a radical avant-garde
that based its architectural projects on standardization and typification. They considered
architecture as a social duty that was to provide clean and healthy living spaces for
citizens from all different socio-economic status groups. Furthermore, the maison-
minimum, then a fundamental element of the international debate, eventually became a
type derived from the ‘scientific’ needs of human life. This understanding of type was
akin to Durand’s types derived from history but it differed as it was directed by new
concepts of clean spaces free from dust and filled with sunlight, the legacies of the
nineteenth century.

Đn this context, the form-making process became equivalent to the mass-production

process. Type became standardized: “The pyramid of production from the smallest tool
to the most complex machine was now seen as analogous to the link between the
column, the house, and the city” [11]. Type in the processes of mass-production
required repetition, type had become prototype. The discussion on types by the various

8
 Type and typology ın archıtectural dıscourse

protagonists resulted in a conformation with the rules of industrial capitalism, and lead
to the idea of prototypes mechanically and serially produced ad infinitum [8]. This
understanding in fact reflects Quatremére de Quincy's model which is defined as a
mechanical reproduction of an object [1, 12].

The main characteristics of the prototype can be summarized as rationality,

functionalization and design control mechanism. Đtalian architectural historian Gregotti
emphasizes the notion of type turning into stereotype by explaining that “a production-
oriented model becomes anti-specific and universally applicable and scientifically
based” [13]. According to him, type acquired a symbolic quality that somehow tried to
interpret the understanding such as expanding bureaucratic organizations and
economical interests of the contracting and manufacturing firms. To summarize the
characteristics of the notion of type during the beginning of the twentieth century,
Moneo presented three major themes: functional determinism, the rejection of
precedents in favor of pure forms, and the notion of prototype versus mass production.
The premise for the first theme is provided by the notion of functionalism. The cause
effect relation between form and function, epitomized by Durand, was taken to the
extreme. Functionalism rejected the past as a source for knowledge believing that
context was the most important factor in the form-making process. Đndeed, there was no
longer a need for the idea of type.

Architectural precedents were cautiously examined for formal study and pastiche
application of these precedents were leading the way to eclecticism of styles (Figure 3).

Figure 2- Durand’s typology

(Source: J.N.L. Durand (1990) Art and Science of Architecture, Trans. Sergio Villari)

9
 Y. Đ. Güney

Figure 3- Venturi’s eclectic house facades (Source: Internet)

Although the modernist understanding of the notion of type has usually been criticized
as promoting the notion of type as stereotype or prototype, the contemporary
architectural historian Reichlin directed our attention to the innovative contribution of
Le Courbusier, one of the master builders of the period. According to Reichlin, Le
Corbusier recognized that an architectural work is an accumulation of functions that
could often be mutually contradictory and thus these functions first should be
recognized by an analytical separation. The analysis is needed to reorganize these
contradictory functions synergically in such as way that obstacles in between them are
reduced or even eliminated. Reichlin suggested that this is a radical change in the
approach of form-making process. He specifically tries to shed light on Le Corbusier’s
plan libre that represents a disruption and seems to negate the idea of type. However,
Reichlin argued that what Le Corbusier deals with is not outside of the typological
problem. Đn fact, Le Corbusier himself used the term ‘type Domino’ to describe the
structural correlates imposed by plan libre [14].

The types later proposed by the Neo-Rationalists are presented as an extension of the
traditional ones that were not able to create a great upheaval. The significance of the
plan libre, on the other hand, is that it “broke new conceptual ground and because of this
fact, it interests us apart from the pragmatic evaluation given to it today” [14]. Đn
Reichlin’s words, Le Corbusier’s designs suggested for the idea of type to be split up to
meet each mode of existence of the architectural work, including but not limited to
structural, material technique, distributive, geometric, spatial, plastic, and stylistic-
iconographic types. Moreover, it proposes that the designer must know the concomitant
causes, the attritions and the conditioning synergies between the various types.
Reichlin’s presentation of the understanding of Le Courbusier’s notion of type provides
a different more positivist perspective on the modernist idea of type as it promotes a
successful design solution that balances and satisfies the needs of different modes of
architectural artifact.

3.3. Type theory in neo-rationalist perspective

The Neo-Rationalist theory of type emerged in the late sixties after the decline of
modern architecture, with the aim to emphasize the continuity of form and history
against the fragmentation produced by the mechanistic understanding of typology. At
the center of this theory lies the traditional city and it emphasizes the natural process of

10
 Type and typology ın archıtectural dıscourse

growth of cities, and the unbreakable chain of continuity from the houses, to streets, to
districts, and to the city itself. Underlying the relationship between the elements and the
whole, the Neo-Rationalist approach gave an impetus to morphological analysis to
understand architecture and thus formed a basis for continued development of
typological studies. According to Moneo, this is the time when typological studies find
their most systematic and complex theoretical development [12].

The very first study based on the Neo-Rationalist theory of type is Muratori’s
examination of the urban texture of Venice in his work Studies for an Operating Urban
History of Venice (1959), which included typological and morphological analysis. Đn
Muratori’s work the idea of type as a formal structure became a central idea indicating
the continuity among different scales of the city. Muratori explained the historical
development of Venice as a concept that would link the individual elements with the
overall form of the city. Đn his study, types were explained as the generators of the city
and they included in them all the elements that defined all other scales [12].

Muratori’s research was also criticized because of its methodology. Tafuri, for
example, refers to Muratori's study as analytic but less valid in research methodology:
“They [Salverio Muratori and his school] have also the demerit of starting from a-
historical methodological premises that often falsify the analytical process and the
choice of samples” [15]. Scolari also reminds us that these studies had in time almost
completely disappeared because of the length and difficulty of the kind of research, in
addition to the lack of historical method or a sufficiently clear and autonomous
‘surveying technique’ [16].

Muratori’s approach, no matter how much criticized, created what is known as the
Đtalian school for urban morphology. Stemming from this school is the work of
Gianfranco Caniggia who conceptualized the city as a dynamic procedural typology,
and recently the works of Giancarlo Cataldi, Luigi Maffei, Paolo Vaccaro, and Maria
Grazia Corsini [25]. Đn late 1960s, in France, Philippe Panerai and Jean Castex together
with Jean-Charles DePaule, founded the School of Architecture in Versailles, as part of
the dissolution of the Beaux-Arts. Also stemmed from Muratorian tradition, the work
of the School of Versailles is usually referred to as the French school of urban
morphology.

It should also be noted here that the British school of urban morphology is based on the
work of M. R. G Conzen (1907-2000): ‘town-plan analysis’ that aims to examine the
layering of the town plan, the building fabric and land use through history to understand
the urban from. His most influential work Alnwick, Northumberland was published in
1960. Conzen’s studies were furthered by JWR Whitehand who has examined the ways
in which this understanding of the urban form could be put into use [28]. Conzen's son,
Michael P Conzen, on the other hand, advances his father’s work in his studies of
American urban morphology [26]. Anne Vernez –Moudon’s analysis of a
neighborhood near the center of San Francisco, is an American example that examines
the transformation of spaces over the years in terms of the buildings’ morphological and
functional characteristics, open spaces and land subdivision practices [27].

The Neo-Rationalist approach received much more influence with Aldo Rossi and Carlo
Argan’s interpretations of Quatremére de Quincy’s type theory contained in the
Encylopedie Methodique. Aldo Rossi's ideas about type were expressed via both his

11
 Y. Đ. Güney

writings and built projects. Architecture of the City (1982) was his major theoretical
work, in which Rossi declares that his aim is to propose an “autonomous urban theory.”
According to Scolari, this work, with its clear and apodictic style, written in the first
person, produced a real ‘Mona Lisa effect’ inside the professional world [16].
Criticizing the “artificial as well as useless” urban theories constructed without
considering the individual, Rossi proposes an analytical method that lends itself to
quantitative evaluation and that has a unified criteria directing the collection of material
to be studied [17]. Đnstead of focusing on momentary differences such as a specific
historical period, the economic forces of the time, the scale of the artifact, or the original
function of the artifact, Rossi suggests focusing on the similarities, on the universal and
enduring, i.e. permanent, character of cities through comparative study of urban form,
using a typological-morphological approach. Typology then, Rossi suggests, becomes
the “analytical moment of architecture” [17].

According to Rossi, from the contrast between particular and universal, between
individual and collective, between public and private spheres, between public and
private buildings, between rational design of urban design and the values of the locus or
place emerges the form of the city and its architecture. Also influenced from Muratori’s
work, Rossi promoted traditional building types and emphasized the significance of
examining historic cities for architecture [26, 27]. Considering “city itself as an
artifact,” i.e. as architecture, in a sense, will enable one to understand that the time
factor is not an issue but city is one piece molded within time through dynamic forces
acting on it. Thus, Rossi rejected to divide history in periods thinking that it leads to the
loss of universal and permanent character. Đnstead, his analytical approach prioritizes
universal over particular and suggests that this permanent, universal, collective
character is the type, “the logical principle that’s prior to form and that constitutes it”
[17]. Rossi defined typology as the study of elements of a city and of architecture that
cannot be further reduced (Figure 4). The process of reduction is a necessary, logical
operation that enables the examination of urban and architectural form.

The occasion of the fifteenth Milan Triennial in 1973 gave an opportunity for Rossi to
produce the manifesto Architettura Razionale, which gave birth to the movement Neo-
Rationalism. Numerous architects from all over Europe quickly joined the movement,
including Vittorio Gregotti, Giorgio Grassi, Carlo Aymonino, Leon and Rob Krier,
James Stirling, Oswald Matthias Ungers, and Josef Paul Kleihues. Rob Krier, for
example, after working on a design for a complex project in downtown Stuttgart, starts
in 1970 to work out his urban ideas, which were later incorporated in Urban Space, as a
mix of text, photographs, and drawings, in addition to matrices [18]. Đn his text, one of
the matrixes defines the alterations of a given spatial type. Another matrix summarizes
the morphological classification of urban spaces as the three basic shapes of square,
circle, triangle, and the modulating factors that affect them, such as angling,
segmentation, addition, merging, overlapping or amalgamation of elements, and
distortion (Figure 5). Đn 1988, Krier published Architectural Composition, in which he
applied the classificatory procedure with the subject of architectural forms, with even
more elaborately detailed rules of combinations. After mentioning the death of the form
follows function dictum, Krier suggests that spatial types are definite and in the end
relatively independent from the immediate primary function [18]. Rossi also rejects
functionalism as a primary determinant of form because of its inability to explain the
persistence of certain forms despite functional changes. Citing the Palazzo della
Ragione in Padua, Rossi states: “one is struck by the multiplicity of functions that a

12
 Type and typology ın archıtectural dıscourse

building of this type can contain over time and how these functions are entirely
independent of the form” [17]. Therefore, the source of forms for architecture is the
accumulated forms that make up the city. The city becomes a quarry of formal types,
the generator of the typologies whose referents and elements are to be abstracted from
the vernacular. Rossi prioritizes universal over particular, collective over individual.
However, the individual and the particular are the keys to reach to the collective and the
universal and thus are also significant in his thinking.

It has been suggested that, Rossi’s typological concepts favor the local and
autobiographic elements that were neglected by Modernism. On the other hand, they
have also been criticized as becoming highly idiosyncratic, relying on autobiography,
memory, and fleeting impressions [19]. Moneo defines Rossi's understanding of type as
juxtaposition of memory and reason. Memory is the idiosyncratic, personal, qualitative
aspect of type, while reason is the universal, fundamental, internal logic of form. He
further criticizes Rossi's types as “communicating only with themselves and their ideal
context. They become only mute reminders of a more or less perfect past, a past that
may not even have existed” [12]. Rossi’s position has also been criticized for
devaluating the architectural discipline as a building profession, specifically by Scolari.
While on the one hand Scolari accepts that Rossi’s position favored the recovery of
elements neglected by the International Style, at the same time, he criticizes the
emphasis on urban analysis and on the theory of architecture which favors the
composition rather than the project [16].

Figure 4- Foundations (Source: Aldo Rossi (1985) The Architecture of the City)

13
 Y. Đ. Güney

Figure 5- Krier’s typology (Source: Rob Krier (1979) Urban Space)

The latest development that shares the significance of the Neo-Rationalist emphasis on
the relationship between the elements and the whole is the space syntax approach.
Developed during the late twentieth century, space syntax methodology borrows the
concepts of ‘genotype’ and ‘phenotype’ from the discipline of biology and applies it to
social sciences in general and architecture in particular [29]. Genotypes are abstract
relational models governing the arrangement of spaces, the underlying organizing
principle of phenotypes; and phenotypes are actual realization of genotypes in different
physical milieu, i.e. architectural artifacts. By examining the syntactical aspects of
phenotypes, it is expected to reveal the underlying genotype that is shared by the
phenotypes examined. Space syntax theory proposes that genotypes are reflections not
only of spatial organization but also the nature of social and cultural patterns. Hiller
considers the spatial configuration, i.e. complex relational schemes, non-discursive
aspects of design that are difficult to talk about. The reason why architects cannot talk
about them is because they are architects’ unconscious social knowledge. The aim of
space syntax, then, is described as inquiry into this “unconscious configurational basis
of social knowledge” [30].

A number of studies examined domestic architecture of various cultures, such as Luiz

Amorim’s examination of Brazilian residential architecture, Frank Brown & Bellal
Tahar’s study of Berber housing in Algeria, Deniz Orhun’s study of traditional Turkish
houses, Guney’s study of twentieth century Ankara apartments [31], and examination
of historic Anatolian towns by Kubat [32].

4. Discussion and conclusion

Classifications are human constructs necessary to understand and clarify the

commonalities and differences between various phenomena. Although one cannot
disagree about the extent they are helpful for us, sometimes proposed categories could
become strict boundaries which could limit our understanding. Similarly, examining

14
 Type and typology ın archıtectural dıscourse

the notion of type indicates that there are both constructive aspects as well as limitations
that can surface when one is dealing with the theory of type. The Table 1 summarizes
the different the historical transformation of type and typology concepts since the
Enlightenment, which has been examined in three developing stages based on
methodological and historical interpretation.

Table 1.Summary table for the theories of type

Type Theory in Type Theory in Modernist Type Theory in Neo-

Enlightenment Philosophy Đdeology Rationalist Perspective
The architect of the The modernist type theory is Emphasizes the continuity of
Enlightenment looked at the based on the changing social form and history against the
beginnings of shelter as the first structure and the need for mass fragmentation produced by the
type of habitation production after the post-war era mechanistic understanding of
typology.
abbé-Marc-Antoine Laugier Đn this context, the form-making At the center of this theory lies
(1713-96) in Essai sur process became equivalent to the the traditional city and it
l’architecture proposed a natural mass-production process. Type emphasizes the natural process
basis for architecture to be found became standardized of growth of cities, and the
in the model of the primitive hut unbreakable chain of continuity
from the houses, to streets, to
districts, and to the city itself.
Quatremére de Quincy (1755- the maison-minimum, then a Đtalian School:
1849) fundamental element of the Muratori – operational history
the understanding of type as “the international debate, eventually Caniggia
general form, structure, or became a type derived from the Cataldi, Maffei, Corsini
character distinguishing a ‘scientific’ needs of human life. French School
particular type, group, or class of Panerai and Castex
beings or objects” British School
de Quincy discussed distinct Le Courbusier MRG Conzen
‘mother tongues’ of architecture. ‘type Domino’ to describe the JWR Whitehand
structural correlates imposed by MP Conzen
plan libre Space Syntax
J. N. L. Durand (1760-1834) Buckminster Fuller Rossi and Argan
Recueil et parallele des edifices ‘Dymaxion House’ The fifteenth Milan Triennial in
de tout genre (1801), a kind of a prototype of a house to be 1973 - Architettura Raziona
“typological atlas of mass-produced, easily shipped, Gregotti, Grassi, Aymonino,
architecture” hygienic, and able to stand up to Leon and Rob Krier, Stirling,
a Kansas tornado Ungers, and Kleihues

One of the main criticisms of the notion of type and typology is related to the danger of
type turning into stereotype. According to Ungers, for example, form follows function
slogan led, at the cost of architecture, to an all discriminating pragmatism as the
oppressing phenomenon of empirical optimism [1]. De Carlo also based his criticism
against the notion of type on the description of stereotype as the rigid type that is
repeated or reproduced without any variations and according to a pre-established
conception, and bearing no distinctive signs or individual qualities [20]. Furthermore,
De Carlo also suggested that types have stiffened to the point of giving the impression
that the invention of alternatives is useless as types do not accept variations, additions,
or alterations. Typology as such does not and cannot incorporate user participation, and
therefore it is antithetic to participation.

There are critics who recognize the contributions of typological approach, and believe
in continuous debate so that the understanding of the notion of type can flourish.
Gregotti and Reichlin, for example, accept and support the recent use of the notion of
type as well as the focused attention on typology, but criticize their refusal of the
significance of function all together. Gregotti defines the understanding of type as
becoming “stone-hard value of laws independent from any heteronymous situation”

15
 Y. Đ. Güney

[13]. He suggests that this separation from the particular and the individual reduced the
architectural designs’ capacity to find in reality the necessary confrontation and ideas.
Đnstead, Gregotti directs attention to the organic relation between the functions, the
necessity of the project, the reason for an idea, and the construction process [13].

Reichlin, furthermore, emphasizes the fact that architectural work is a structurally

complex material and at the same time a tool which is subject to factual and cultural use
and a plastic and spatial artifact that is the object of a symbolic and aesthetic fruition.
He questions how may of these dimensions have been considered in typological
approaches and if they are considered as a system or not. Reichlin criticizes the
application of typological approach in design schools having similar problems as the
inductive method. He also cautions us against loosing structural and functional
attention to architectural object, and architecture becoming repetition of models.

Oriol Bohigas is another contemporary theoretician who, on the one hand, recognizes
type as “one of enlivening elements” of recent architectural debate, and on the other
hand, criticizes the instrumentalization of type, type as being conceived as a means of
supplying certain final-model forms [21]. According to Bohigas, the
instrumentalization of type has caused a crisis in the historical process of modern
architecture. The use of ‘type’ as a tool in the design process, similar to what Gregotti
says, has led to ‘typification of the type’ that is the tendency to discourage the
emergence of new formal structures because of the belief that historically formulated
types could provide the answers to new functions and production systems. Moreover,
according to Bohigas, this attitude created the appearance of a “formal frozen repertory”
that is very easy to repeat exactly as it is without any new cultural value. Đnstead, he
offers the idea of type as the first hypothesis in the design process. Then we need to
recognize the real structure of the historical experience not just its stylistic appearance.
This historical experience needs to be examined and this can only be valuable through
typology. His approach is based on having a hypothesis and testing the fitness of this
hypothesis to the concrete facts of the scheme and continuously re-proposing a new
hypothesis until that propriety is obtained. The constructive aspects of type as well as
the vitality of typological thinking for creative thought in general is well recognized
within the architectural community. As Reichlin summarizes; “the idea of type
promotes a census of knowledge, a re-ordering of experience around the discipline of
architecture, and, consequently, a reconquest of intelligibility” [14]. However,
typological thinking should not be condemned only to be a practical tool used for the
development of types, basic patterns or concepts. The typological thinking “defines a
way of thinking in basic all-encompassing contingencies, of having a universal view of
the world of ideas, as well as that of reality” [1]. Đn other words, typological thinking
might facilitate a way of looking at life that promotes thinking in transformations, a way
of thinking that combines the opposites in a morphological continuum.

To conclude, typological thoughts and actions presuppose two things: first, to recognize
and discover basic types; secondly the ability to see things in complementary
relationships. As Unger suggests, “thinking of manifold possibilities corresponds to
thinking in morphological transformations of things and states, be they the material of
nature or culture” [1]. This way of looking might in fact be instrumental in the creation
of more appreciative, grateful and sensible way of seeing differences by putting them in
a continuum and recognizing the invisible connections between them, not only within
the architectural discourse but also in all aspects of life in general.

16
 Type and typology ın archıtectural dıscourse

5. References

[1] Ungers, O. M., “Ten Opinions on the Type” Casabella, 509-510: 93-95, (1985).
[2] Franck, K. and Schneekloth, M. (eds.) “Ordering Space: Types in Architecture
and Design” New York. Van Nostrand Reinhold (1994).
[3] “Webster’s College Dictionary” New York. Random House (1997).
[4] Mauro, T. D., “Typology” Casabella, 509-510: 88-91, (1985).
[5] Quatremere de Quincy, A. C., “Type” (trans.) A. Vidler, Oppositions, 8: 147-
150, (1977).
[6] Vidler, A., “The Đdea of Type: the Transformation of the Academic Đdeal, 1750-
1830” Oppositions, 8: 93-113, (1977).
[7] Kruft, H. A., “History of Architectural Theory: From Vitruvius to the Present”
New York. Princeton Architectural Press (1994).
[8] Lampugnani, V. M., “Typology and Typification” Casabella, 509-510: 84-87,
(1985).
[9] Perez-Gomez, A., “Architecture and the Crisis of Modern Science” Cambridge.
MĐT Press (1983).
[10] Oechslin, W., “For a Resumption of the Typological Discussion” Casabella,
509-510: 66-75 (1985).
[11] Vidler, A., “The Third Typology” Oppositions, 7: 1-3, (1976).
[12] Moneo, R., “On Typology” Oppositions, 13: 23-45, (1978).
[13] Gregotti, V., “The Grounds of Typology” Casabella, 509-510: 4-8, (1985).
[14] Reichlin, B., “Type and Tradition of the Modern” Casabella, 509-510: 32-39,
(1985).
[15] Tafuri, M., “Theories and History of Architecture” New York. Harper and Row
(1976).
[16] Scolari, M., “The Typological Commitment” Casabella, 509-510: 42-44,
(1985).
[17] Rossi, A., “The Architecture of the City” Cambridge. MĐT Press (1982).
[18] Krier, R., “Urban Space” New York. Rizzoli (1979).
[19] Francescato, G., “Type and Possibility of an Architectural Scholarship” Franck,
K.(ed) Ordering Space: Types in Architecture and Design. New York. V.
N. Reinhold (1994).
[20] De Carlo, G., “Notes on the Uncontrollable Ascent of Typology” Casabella,
509-510: 46-52, (1985).
[21] Bohigas, O., “Ten Opinions on the Type” Casabella, 509-510: 93, (1985).
[22] Colquhoun, A., “Essays in Architectural Criticism” Cambridge. MĐT Press
(1995).
[23] Krier, R., “Architectural Composition” New York. Rizzoli (1988).
[24] Laugier, M. A., “An Essay on Architecture” (trans.) Herrmann, W., Los
Angeles. Hennessey and Đngalls (1977).
[25] Cataldi, G. and G. L. Maffei and N. Marzot and G. Strappa and P. Vaccaro
“A contribution of the Đtalian school of processual typology to the
disciplinary foundation of Urban Morphology” paper presented at the
Đnternational Seminar on Urban Form, Symposium (2005).
[26] Moudon, A. V. “Urban Morphology as an Emerging Đnterdisciplinary Field,” in
Urban Morphology, 1, 3-10, (1997).
[27] Moudon, A. V. “Getting to know the Built Landscape: Typomorphology,” in
Franck, K. and Schneekloth, M. (eds.) “Ordering Space: Types in
Architecture and Design” New York. Van Nostrand Reinhold: 289-311 (1994);

17
 Y. Đ. Güney

A. V. Moudon, Built for Change: Neighborhood Architecture in San Francisco

(1986).
[28] Kubat, A. S. and O. Ertekin and Y. Đ. Guney (eds) Proceedings of the 6th
Đnternational Space Syntax Symposium, Đstanbul, Đstanbul Technical
University (2007).
[29] Hillier, B. and Leaman, A. “How is Design Possible,” in Journal of
Architectural Research, 3: 4-11 (1974), Hillier, B. and J. Hanson, Social
Logic of Space, (1984).
[30] Hillier, B. Space is the Machine, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
(1996).
[31] Guney, Y. Đ. Appropriated A la Franga: An Examination of Turkish
Modernization Through the Lens of Domestic Culture, Ann Arbor: ProQuest
UMĐ (2006).
[32] Kubat, A. S. "The Morphological Characteristics of Anatolian Fortified
Towns". Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24:95-123,
(1997).

18