2/9/2019 The City as a Project | Type

Type

Christopher C.M. Lee

August 16, 2011

The word ‘type’ comes from the Greek word typos which means ‘model, matrix,
impression, mould, mark, figure in relief, original form’ and from the Latin word
typus which means ‘figure, image, form, kind’.

Common use
The common understanding of ‘type’ refers to an object or artifact that belongs to
a class or group that brings together others with similar attributes. In architecture,
‘type’ is commonly understood as buildings grouped by their use, that is schools,
hospitals, prisons, churches and so on.[1] However, this understanding is limiting
as the use of a building has shown to be independent from its building and evolves
in time. A warehouse can be turned into apartments, and a Georgian terrace into a
school. What this means is that to understand ‘type’ via use tells us little about the
shared characteristics and traits of the artifacts or objects that belong to the group
in question, hence impeding against the knowledge that could have been otherwise
Dominant Types, Honk Kong, 2011
acquired.

‘Type’ as Idea (Eidōs)

For the definition of the word ‘type’ in architectural theory we can turn to Antoine-
Chrysostome Quatremère de Quincy’s (1755 – 1849) masterful definition in the 1. In part, this tendency to classify group buildings
Dictionnaire historique d’architecture (1825) that also formally introduced the notion of according to use can be attributed to Nicholas Pevsner, in
‘type’ into architectural discourse. For Quatremère de Quincy, ‘The word ‘type’ his Architectural Guides (1951-75).
presents less the image of a thing to copy or imitate completely than the idea of an
element which ought itself to serve as a rule for the model.’[2] For him, ‘type’ is the 2. Quatremère de Quincy, “Type” in Encyclopédie
idea or symbolic meaning that is embodied in an element, an object or a thing. Méthodique, vol. 3, trans. Samir Younés, reprinted in The
Thus ‘type’ is abstract and conceptual rather than concrete and literal. Following a Historical Dictionary of Architecture of Quatremère de Quincy
neo-platonic tradition, this idea for Quatremère de Quincy can also be understood (London: Papadakis Publisher, 2000).
as the ideal that an architect should strive for in the process of creative production,
that is, an idea that can never be fully materialized in the process of artistic
creation. Thus Quatremère’s definition touches upon and serves as a metaphysical
theory of ‘type’. According to Quatremère de Quincy’s theory of Imitation,[3] this 3. Ibid., p. 175.
idea is the laws that govern nature rather than the product of nature. This law or
abstract principle that guides any artistic production is therefore eternal and ideal,
although the models that arise from the application of these principles are infinite
in its variations.

While agreeing with Quatremère de Quincy on the distinction between idea and
model, Gottfried Semper (1803-79) defines ‘type’ as the idea that must be
understood through the potentials of four building techniques: terracing (masonry),
roofing (carpentry), the hearth (ceramics) and walling (textiles).[4] This materialist 4. Gottfried Semper, ‘London Lecture of November 11,
approach of Semper displaces the idea of ‘type’ from an idealist position to a 1853’, RES: Journal of Anthropology and Aesthetics, no.6
practical one. (Autumn 1983) p.5-31

Similarly, Giulio Carlo Argan (1909-1992), departs from Quatremère de Quincy’s

insistence on deriving principles from nature as an ideal. For Argan, ‘type’ is an
idea no longer residing in nature but in building precedents and therefore in the

http://thecityasaproject.org/2011/08/type/ 1/4
2/9/2019 The City as a Project | Type

history of architecture. This value is thus relative, not an ideal nor immutable. For
Argan, ‘The birth of a ‘‘type’’ is therefore dependent on the existence of a series of
buildings having between them an obvious formal and functional analogy.’[5] This 5. Giulio Carlo Argan, ‘On the Typology of Architecture,’
assertion points to the crucial fact that new ‘types’ can be detected as much as they Architectural Design, 33.12 (1963), 564-65″
can be surpassed, hence enabling a design process that is syntactic and discursive in
equal measure. I would argue that, seen this way, to work typologically is to analyse,
reason and propose through things which are of the same type, thus considering
them in series. Working in series[6] reveals the shared traits between things and to 6. Christopher C.M Lee, ‘Working in Series: Towards an
harness the embodied and cumulative intelligence of that series into architectural Operative Theory of Type’ in Lee, Christopher C.M. &
projections. This serial consideration emancipates the idea of type from a fixed Gupta, Kapil, Working in Series (London: AA Publications,
ideal without displacing the need for an ideal. 2010)

Influenced by Argan’s ‘On the Typology of Architecture’, Aldo Rossi (1931-1997)

defines ‘type’ as ‘… the very idea of architecture, that which is closest to its
essence. In spite of changes, it has always imposed itself on the “feelings and
reason” as the principle of architecture and of the city.’[7] For Rossi, ‘type’ is the 7. Aldo Rossi, The Architecture of the City, trans. by Diane
principle that can be found in the urban artifact. The urban artifact, as defined by Ghirardo and Joan Ockman (Cambridge: MIT Press,
Rossi, is not only a building, but a fragment of the city. The urban artifact should 1982), p.41
be understood as fatto urbano or faite urbaine, they are not just physical thing in
the city, but all of its history, geography, structure and connection with the general
life of the city as noted by Peter Eisenman.[8] The ambiguity of the urban artifact 8. Ibid., p. 22.
also owes to the above definitions; that the city itself is an artifact, that it is divided
into individual buildings and dwelling areas. Following this, it would mean that
every physical structure in the city is potentially an urban artifact. Thus for Rossi,
the differentiating factor would have to be its individuality which comes from its
quality, uniqueness and definition.[9] This individuality depends more on its form 9. Ibid, p. 29.
than material, its complex entity that developed over space and time, its historical
richness, its certain original values and function that persist (which is for Rossi is of
spiritual value), and its sum of all experiences and memories (ominous or
auspicious).[10] 10. The most significant urban artifacts for Rossi are
housing and monuments. This is because the changes in
‘Type’ as Model (Eidolon) housing and the imprints left on them become the signs
When ‘type’ is understood (solely) as model, it refers to an irreducible element, of daily life, a collective memory of the city. Urban
object or artifact, that can be further varied (as a copy) in the process of artistic monuments owe their singularity to the quality of
creation or design. For Quatremère de Quincy, ‘The model, understood in the permanence, and are primary elements acting as fixed
sense of practical execution, is an object that should be repeated as it is; point in the urban dynamics.
contrariwise, the ‘type’ is an object after which each artist can conceive works that
bear no resemblance to each other. All is precise and given when it comes to the
model, while all is more or less vague when it comes to the ‘type’.[11] This 11. Samir Younés, The Historical Dictionary of Architecture of
conception of ‘type’ as model in the late 18th and early 19th century can also be Quatremère de Quincy, p. 255
traced to the way Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand (1760-1834) treats the notion of
‘type’, and has been commonly associated to ‘typology’ as a design method. In his
Recueil et parallèle des edifices de tous genres, anciens et modernes (Collection and Parallel of
Edifices of All Kinds, Ancient and Modern), (1799-1801) and the Précis des leçons
d’architecture données à l’École Polytechnique (Précis of the Lectures on Architecture
Given at the Ecole Polytechnique), (1802-1805), Durand attempts to find a
systematic method in classifying various genres of buildings and to distil them to its
most typical elemental parts.[12] Durand proposed that new ‘types’ for the recently 12. Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand, Préecis of the Lectures on
emerging urban condition can be created through the adaptation and Architecture, Trans. David Britt. (Los Angeles: Getty Trust
recombination of these typical elements to specific sites, responding to its Publications, 2000). Durand’s diagrams primarily capture
constraints. This notion of ‘type’ as model, represented graphically as structural the structural elements of various building ‘types’,
axes in Durand’s case, introduces precepts that are fundamental to working comprising a layer of grids that denotes both structure and
typologically: precedents, classification, taxonomy, continuity, repetition, geometric composition.
differentiation and reinvention. It must be pointed out that Durand did not use the
word ‘type’ in his two books and did not explicitly set out to define the concept of
‘type’. His theoretical ambition was to systematize architectural knowledge and to
set out a rational method in designing buildings. In doing so, he constructed a
science of architecture that inadvertently outlined a didactic theory of ‘type’ and
constitutes what we understand as ‘typology’. Although Durand utilizes ‘typology’
in a pragmatic manner, evidenced in his pedagogical approach in teaching
architectural design in the École Polytechnique, his larger ambition was to arrive at
a general principle of architecture that is understandable and can involve not only
architects and engineers but the general public. In this light, I propose that

http://thecityasaproject.org/2011/08/type/ 2/4
2/9/2019 The City as a Project | Type

Durand’s ‘typology’ can be seen as a common grammar, where this form of

disciplinary knowledge no longer utilizes symbolic means to construct a shared
value but utilizes the very material of architecture as a common grammar that
unites.

Typology
The suffix –ology of ‘typology’ comes from the Greek logos, which means ‘a
discourse, treatise, theory or science’. Thus ‘‘typology’ is the discourse, theory,
treatise (method) or science of ‘type’. ‘Typology’ is not the opposite of topology.
This false opposition is often made to contrast the processes of formal
differentiation in architecture. The former is characterised as a combinatory
process resulting in discontinuous differentiated forms whilst the latter produces a
continuously differentiated form. ‘Type’ and ‘typology’ as defined above is not
concerned with the smoothness or continuities of formal differentiation and thus
to pose it as the opposite of topology is a folly.

Typicality
‘Typicality’[13] as put forth by Peter Carl refers to ‘conventions’ or ‘frameworks of 13. Carl, Peter, ‘Type, Field, Culture, Praxis’ in
understanding’ that relies on common situations and typical elements. For Carl, Architectural Design, 81.1, (2011). This distinction
‘type’ is a subset to ‘typicalities’. This is because Carl understands ‘type’ as formal between type and typicality was first drawn by Dalibor
variations (or model). He draws a clear distinction between ‘type’ and ‘typicality’; Vesley 30 years ago according to Carl and appears now as
and to illustrate this point, Carl uses the example of the type ‘bedroom’ versus the the role ‘paradigmatic situation’ in Architecture in the Age of
‘typical situation’ associated with the bedroom. The former refers to a medium size Divided Representation: The Question of Creativity in the Shadow
room with a bed, side table, window, closet and an access to a WC. Whereas the of Production (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004).
latter refers to a richer and more profound interpretation that can include sleep,
sex, illness, death and so on. Thus for Carl, ‘types’ are isolated fragments of a
deeper and richer structure of ‘typicalities’ and ‘The principle difference between
typology and typicality is that the former concentrates upon (architectural) objects,
the latter upon situations.’[14] ‘Typicalities’ for instance operate in language as a 14. Ibid., p.40
framework of understanding, for mutual understanding requires the element of
recognition, otherwise we will be compelled to invent language a fresh at every
meeting. Carl argues that this ‘language’ should not be understood as the
structuralism of French linguistics that attempts to translate all language into a
grammar of messages or codes. Instead this language as framework of
understanding disposes typicalities in strata. The most immediate are common
meanings, followed by accents or sounds, then bodily gestures. As such,
recognition is only possible through the common elements carried by ‘typicalities’.

Dominant Type
The word ‘dominant’ means ruling, governing or having an influence over
something; it also means something that is prevailing. Thus, for a ‘type’ to be
dominant, it has to prevail. What is the most prevailing is also the most typical and
what is the most typical is also common to all. And no other sphere is more
common to all than the city. Thus, a ‘dominant type’ can be understood as the
typical element that constitute the city and are the embodiment of the common. It
oscillates between both ends of typicalities – common situations and typical
elements – and serves as both a framework of understanding and as a reified typical
architectural object that figures forth the idea of the city.

The idea of the city is historically constituted and concerns itself with the civic and
symbolic function of human settlements and coexistence. As cities owe their main
characteristic to geographical and topographical condition and that cities are always
linked to other cities for trade and resources, they tend to specialize and form a
distinctive character.[15] It is this distinctive character coupled with the need to 15. Cities founded on river banks, sea ports, railways,
accommodate differences that gives rise to the possibility of a collective meaning highlands (hill towns) and so on. We see today, cities that
for the city. This meaning changes with time, in response to its ever changing position themselves as ‘knowledge cities’, financial cities,
inhabitants (or citizens) and external circumstance and is often formalized, medical cities, sport cities etc.
historically, in the construction of civic buildings as landmarks for common
identity and as elements of permanence in the city, exemplified by town halls,
libraries, museums and archives. It is through this understanding that I am 16. For further discussion on the ‘dominant type’ and the
proposing that the Idea of the City can be embodied in these ‘dominant types’. The city, see Christopher C.M. Lee, ‘Projective Series’ in
‘dominant type’ here carries not only the idea of the city but also the irreducible Christopher C.M. Lee & Sam Jacoby, eds. Typological
Formations: Renewable Building Types and the City (London:

http://thecityasaproject.org/2011/08/type/ 3/4
2/9/2019 The City as a Project | Type

typal imprints of the history and construction of the city. Thus, to understand the AA Publications, 2007) and Christopher C.M. Lee & Sam
‘dominant type’ is to understand the city itself.[16] Jacoby, ‘Typological Urbanism: Projective Cities,’
Architectural Design, 209 (2011)

http://thecityasaproject.org/2011/08/type/ 4/4