See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/23541185

A classification of built forms

Article  in  Environment and Planning B Planning and Design · January 2000

DOI: 10.1068/bst7 · Source: RePEc

CITATIONS READS

49 2,301

6 authors, including:

Philip Steadman
University College London
120 PUBLICATIONS   1,682 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

LUCID: The Development of a Local Urban Climate Model and its Application to the Intelligent Design of Cities View project

3DStock View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Philip Steadman on 28 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2000, volume 27, pages 73 ^ 91

DOI:10.1068/bst7

A classification of built forms

Philip Steadman}, Harry R Bruhns}, Senino Holtier, Bratislav Gakovic

Department of Design and Innovation, Faculty of Technology, The Open University, Walton Hall,
Milton Keynes, England
Peter A Rickaby
Rickaby Thompson Associates Ltd, Witan Court, 296 Witan Gate West, Central Milton Keynes
MK9 1EJ, England; e-mail: RickabyThompson@compuserve.com
Frank E Brown
The Manchester School of Architecture, University of Manchester, Manchester, England;
e-mail: Frank.Brown@man.ac.uk
Received 8 April 1999

Abstract. A classification of built forms is presented. It is based on a study of buildings surveyed at

3350 addresses in four English towns and has been designed for use in the national Non-Domestic
Building Stock (NDBS) database developed for the Department of Environment, Transport and the
Regions. As the prime use of the database is in energy analysis, the classification focuses on the
external envelopes of buildings. (Materials of construction, servicing systems, and activities are
classified separately.) Built forms are distinguished according to two main criteria: the broad `texture'
of their internal subdivision; and whether they are daylit or artificially lit.

Introduction
A national Non-Domestic Building Stock (NDBS) database has been developed for
the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Steadman et al, 2000a).
In this database the activities in buildings and the geometrical forms of buildings have
been classified separately. The reasons for making this distinction are set out in Bruhns
et al (2000). They have to do with the very loose relationship of form to function in the
existing building stock. A single, readily distinguishable type of built form such as that
of a converted terrace house, or a prefabricated shed, can house any of a very wide
range of activities. Conversely, the same activity, for example office work, can be
carried on in any of a number of different geometrical forms of building. In the present
paper we describe the classification of built formsöindependent of the uses to which
they are putöwhich has been developed for the NDBS database.
The classification has been based on the empirical evidence of buildings surveyed
at 3350 addresses in four English towns (Brown et al, 2000), as represented in pseudo-
three-dimensional form in the Smallworld GIS (Holtier et al, 2000). Special attention
was given to the buildings covered in the Swindon survey. Some 400 of these were
drawn in axonometric projection at a standard scale, and measurements were made.
Figure 1 (see over), illustrates sample drawings of medium-sized shops, schools, and
industrial sheds in Swindon. Some standard books on building types were also con-
sulted, for example Clay (1902) and the Department of Education and Science and the
Welsh Office (1977) on school buildings, Joedicke (1962) on offices, Ham (1972) on
theatres, Klose (1965) on multistorey car parks and garages, and others. Because so
many nondomestic activities are found in converted houses, it was also possible to
make use of earlier work on the systematic classification of house forms in the English
stock (Brown and Steadman, 1991a; 1991b).
} Current address: The Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College London, Gower
Street, London WC1E 6BT; e-mails: j.p.steadman@ucl.ac.uk; h.r.bruhns@ucl.ac.uk
74 J P Steadman, H R Bruhns, P A Rickaby, F E Brown, S Holtier, B Gakovic

(a)

Figure 1. Examples of (a) medium-

sized shops, (b) schools, and
(c) industrial sheds in Swindon,
drawn in axonometric views at a
(b) scale of approximately 1 :1300.
A classification of built forms 75

(c) Figure 1 (continued).

Some simplifying strategies

Three strategies have been adopted to simplify the representation of built form, for the
purposes of developing a comprehensive classification. First, all minor details of
formöany surface articulation, attached orders, small porticoes and balconies, small
bay windows and dormers, etcöare ignored. Clearly this requires judgment as to
which details can be regarded as `minor' in this context. Experience in applying the
classification has shown that some sensible dividing lines can be drawn in practice.
Second, buildings of complicated form are broken down into smaller component
parts and these parts classified separately, where necessary. We will show examples
later. The decomposition also separates what we have called primary forms from
smaller subsidiary or attached elements, referred to here as parasites. This distinction
is also explained in more detail below.
Third, a conceptual separation is made between the dimensions of a built form,
and its shape or configuration. That is to say, the forms are represented parametrically.
In the example of the simple `shed' (rectangular plan, double-pitched roof with gables)
this can be described adequately by associating four dimensional parameters to the
basic form: plan dimensions of length and width, height to eaves, and roof slope
76 J P Steadman, H R Bruhns, P A Rickaby, F E Brown, S Holtier, B Gakovic

l
w

Figure 2. A simple `shed' form described by four parameters: length, l; width, w; height, h; roof
slope, a.

(or height to ridge) (figure 2). These parameters measure continuously variable quan-
tities. In other instances parameters might take integral values, for example to describe
numbers of floor levels. Such an approach to representation means that a single
canonical `dimensionless' built form can stand, in principle, for an infinitely large class
of dimensioned instances.
(In the event, there proved to be both practical and conceptual difficulties in
making automatic measurements of the plan dimensions of length and depth of the
built forms surveyed in the four towns. Values have been determined only for param-
eters defining numbers of storeys, storey heights, floor areas on each floor level, and
roof slopes for different geometrical forms of roof. In addition, the total length of
external wall has been measured for each form. When considered in combination,
however, the values for floor area on a given level, and total external wall length on
that level, have some implications for plan shape and plan depth.)

The orthogonal geometry of buildings in plan

In the classification of forms it is assumed that, for the most part, the external geometry
of buildings in plan is orthogonal. That is to say, the outside walls of each building are in
effect aligned in plan on a rectangular coordinate system, and all corners formed by
those walls are right angles. This assumption is supported by evidence from several
surveys (see Bemis, 1936; Kru«ger, 1977) besides those in the four towns. Minor depar-
tures from plan orthogonality, such as curved or angled bay windows, or rounded or
chamfered corners, are ignored. In cases where plan shapes approximate to orthogon-
ality but the angles between walls depart slightly from 908öas in many old buildings, or
because of the exigencies of sites öthose plans are treated as if perfectly rectangular.
There are three other sets of circumstances where buildings can typically depart in
plan from orthogonality. The first is where a number of rectangular building masses of
a linear character öfor example, the blocks or wings of a large office or institutional
buildingöare joined at angles other than 908 by nonrectangular linking elements,
typically containing circulation space or services. The second is where an elongated
slab or `strip' building is given a gently curving plan, but an approximation to
orthogonality is nevertheless preserved at the local scale öas in a crescent of terraced
houses. The third is in the plans of buildings which consist of single spaces, for
example open-plan single-storey industrial premises, or detached chapels, bandstands
or kiosks. Here the plan shape as a whole may be polygonal (either regular or
irregular), perhaps even circular or elliptical. All such cases are catered for in the
classification which follows.
A classification of built forms 77

In the vertical direction the principal departure of the geometry of buildings from
the orthogonal tends to be in the form of pitched roofs. Several different forms of
sloping roof are allowed for, with any angle of slope.

Basic criteria for classification: (1) daylit and artificially lit space
We draw some very broad distinctions between certain basic properties of built space.
The first is between space which is daylit and space which is artificially lit. In buildings
with orthogonal geometry, daylight can enter from the side, via windows; or, in the
topmost storey only, from above, via rooflights. Exactly how far daylight can enter
horizontally through windows is in practice determined by many complicating factors:
floor-to-ceiling height, area and type of glazing, the sizes and positions of any external
obstructions, etc. One very important consideration is what actual level of daylighting
is considered acceptable in the worst case.
In principle, however, we can say that constraints of daylighting must put an
effective limit on the maximum allowable depth of sidelit space away from the win-
dows. Beyond this limit, permanent artificial lighting of some kind is required. In some
buildings there are daylit (sidelit) rooms on the periphery, and artificially lit rooms in
the interior; in this case the boundary between the two types of space is clear-cut. In
buildings with open plans, such a boundary cannot be absolutely fixed by theoretical
considerations alone. But empirical data from a sample of such buildings would show
the range of values the limit of daylighting tends to take in practice.
This distinction between daylit and artificially lit space is obviously a very relevant
one from an energy point of view: not just because of the use of energy in artificial
lighting, but also because of the relationship with plan depth, which can in turn affect
demands for heating, cooling, and mechanical ventilation. Figure 3 gives some statis-
tics for plan depth in nineteen large purpose built office buildings in Swindon. The
graph shows total floor area (square metres) in slabs or `strips' of the specified depth
(metres). The distribution is bimodal, with one group of buildings, clustered around
14m in depth, in which the space is wholly daylit and has the potential to be naturally
ventilated; and a second group, in the range 18 to 22m, in which the space is more
likely to require air conditioning. These figures accord with the norms applied in
practice for maximum daylit depths in offices. The LT method for energy design (for
example, Baker et al, 1994) sets a depth of 6m for the peripheral `passive' zones in a plan
60 000

50 000
Floor area, m2

40 000

30 000

20 000

10 000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Depth, m
Figure 3. Plan depths of nineteen large purpose-built office buildings in Swindon. The graph
shows total floor area (square metres) in slabs or `strips' of the specified depth (metres).
78 J P Steadman, H R Bruhns, P A Rickaby, F E Brown, S Holtier, B Gakovic

which can be naturally lit (assuming the ceiling height to be 3m). For a double-aspect,
wholly daylit plan with a central corridor of, say, 2m width this would give a total
depth of 6 ‡ 6 ‡ 4 ˆ 14m. It is clearly important for a classification for energy analysis
to distinguish these respective types of form.

Basic criteria for classification: (2) the average sizes of rooms

Our second distinction has to do with the sizes in plans of rooms or other enclosed
spaces. In theory, rooms might take any plan dimensions, with a lower limit on area of
perhaps a square metre, and no effective upper limit other than that imposed by
considerations of cost and access. In practice, however, we observe that rooms take
typical ranges of size, depending on their functions and on the possibilities allowed by
the structural systems and materials from which they are built. Thus empirical studies
of room sizes in houses and flats show that `habitable' rooms such as living rooms,
dining rooms, kitchens, and bedrooms take restricted ranges of values for floor area,
with distributions which are in general strongly peaked (Brown and Steadman, 1991a).
(This evidence does not imply that other sizes outside these ranges are impossible in
houses, only that they are rare.)
We might expect the same to apply to individual offices in commercial office
buildings, to bedrooms in hotels, to classrooms in schools, and so on. Such rooms
serve relatively standardised purposes, are equipped and furnished in broadly similar
ways, and accommodate roughly comparable numbers of occupants. The actual sizes,
on average, of these cellular rooms, when they are sidelit, can again have a constrain-
ing effect on the depths of buildings in plan. Thus cellular space for domestic use
would tend, in general, to be less deep in plan than cellular office space. Figure 4 gives
statistics for plan depth in a random sample of terraced and semidetached houses in
Cambridge, reproduced from Brown and Steadman (1991a). The numbers of houses
with different depths are given in each case. `Back extensions' have been ignored in the
measurements. In both types of house, the depth values are strongly clustered about a
mean of just over 7m. Comparison with the statistics for office buildings in figure 3
shows that these results must be due to the typical sizes of rooms in houses, and not
any ultimate limits on depth set by the demand for sidelighting as in the offices.
Rooms of this cellular type can occur in isolation. A detached building may
consist, on one floor level, of a single living room, a single small office or a single
classroom. But it is frequently the case in practice that such rooms are assembled
together repetitively in groups: domestic rooms into houses, hotels or hospital wards,
office rooms into office towers, classrooms into classroom blocks. We refer to these
kinds of assemblies of approximately similar-sized rooms as cellular space. (It is
assumed that forms which for the most part make up cellular space will also contain
75 75

50 50
Number

Number

25 25

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Depth, m Depth, m

Figure 4. Plan depths of samples of terraced and semidetached houses in Cambridge. (`Back
extensions' are ignored in the measurements.) The graphs show numbers of houses of the
specified depth (metres).
A classification of built forms 79

circulation areas, stores, toilets, and other small `servant spaces', many of which might
be artificially lit.) It might be better to speak of cellular space being characterised, not
so much by the specific sizes of its component rooms as by a certain broad `texture of
spatial subdivision'.
Moving to larger sizes of room, there would be typical ranges of plan dimension for
such specialised spaces as lecture theatres, assembly halls, churches and chapels, court-
rooms, conference chambers, cinemas, theatres, and other auditoria. In each case, the
space is occupied by a single coordinated activityöassembly, performance, meetingö
which demands a coherent unobstructed volume. The plan shape and height relative to
the plan dimensions are constrained, if loosely in some cases, by the demands of
visibility of one small areaöthe stage, screen, lectern or altaröfrom every other point.
We have called all these kinds of spaces halls. They may in some cases be repeated in
contiguous groups (as in multiscreen cinemas, or lecture theatre blocks in colleges) but
it is more usual for them to be found singly.
A third category of built space can be described by the term open plan. Here the
space continues unobstructed by walls, across what is in principle an unlimited extent
of floor area. Where the occupants of a hall are, broadly speaking, all engaged in one
unified event, the occupants of open-plan space are busy in many separate activitiesö
though all perhaps serving some common purpose at a higher level. Most usually it is
office space of this character which is referred to as open plan. But, in the character-
isation of built form, the same description can be applied to many large shops and to
certain kinds of industrial building such as warehouses and mills. Where open-plan
accommodation is provided on multiple floor levels, it consists typically of extended
horizontal `slices' of space with constant floor-to-ceiling height. Where it occurs at
ground level only, as in many modern factories, warehouses, and supermarkets, then
it may be provided in forms with many different types of structural system and roof
geometry, often in assemblies of adjacent `sheds', and often toplit by rooflights or
monitors.

Combinations of lighting and room size categories

In summary, then, our three categories of built space related to typical room size are:
cellular space, halls, and open-plan space. We can permute these with our two lighting
categories, to create six possibilities:
(1) Daylit cellular;
(2) Artificially lit cellular;
(3) Daylit hall;
(4) Artificially lit hall;
(5) Daylit open plan;
(6) Artificially lit open plan.
The categories are intended, as explained, to begin to make geometrical distinctions
between built forms. The six types of space are nevertheless best characterised by their
respective abilities to accommodate different `generic functions' and can be explained
by reference to the ranges of specific activities which would tend to be found in them.
Daylit cellular would include most domestic space in houses or flats, as well as buildings
of a similar geometrical and constructional character used for a variety of nondomestic
uses. It would include much of the space in hotels and public houses. And it would also
cover most office accommodation, with the obvious exception of open-plan offices.
The daylighting in the great majority of such cases would be by sidelighting because
it would generally be regarded as desirable for rooms with all these functions to have
views. This is not to deny that windowless small offices and even windowless hotel
rooms exist, just to emphasise that they are rare. The permutation artificially lit cellular
80 J P Steadman, H R Bruhns, P A Rickaby, F E Brown, S Holtier, B Gakovic

is thus architecturally somewhat improbable, although it can occur in basements. Toplit

cellular space is found on occasion in changing rooms and public baths.
Halls may be daylit from the side, as typically in churches, or from the top, as in
many courtrooms. The category artificially lit hall would account for all cinemas,
theatres, and television studios.
Daylit open plan implies either that the space is toplit and is thus single storey or
the topmost of several storeys; or, if it is sidelit, that it does not exceed the maximum
depth in plan for this to be feasible. Artificially lit open plan has no such restrictions
and can be extended indefinitely in the horizontal plane, and superimposed on any
number of storeys. It is worth noting that, although the great majority of shops have
large windows on the street frontage, these do not in many cases actually admit
daylight to the interior but are wholly blocked by merchandise and displays. Space in
such buildings is thus properly included under the artificially lit open-plan category.
Some large modern warehouses have no daylight and would also fall into this group, as
would below-ground car parks.

The constraints of sidelighting: `strips' of sidelit space

If an extent of floor space is to be completely sidelit, then the walls in which the
windows are set must obviously not be obstructed externally, and the plan must not
exceed the relevant limit on depth. It follows that, as the area of that floor space
becomes larger, so the shape of the building mass must become elongated in either
the horizontal or the vertical direction, or both, to prevent the depth limit being
broken. Where sidelit facades on two building masses face each other, they must be
kept a suitable distance apart. We have used the term sidelit strips to refer to the
general class of forms resulting from such constraints. Some sidelit strips derive their
light from one side only, but usually they are lit from the two opposite sides, in which
case the maximum plan depth is of course twice as great. (Perhaps slightly less than
twice in practice, if the width of a corridor is included in both cases.)
A sidelit strip may extend indefinitely in plan in a straight line. There are many
actual buildings, composed of space of this type, which do indeed take the form of
simple long straight slabs. We have already mentioned the alternative possibility of
sidelit strips taking gradually curving shapes in plan, as in crescents or sinuous snaking
office buildings. In other cases, lengths of sidelit strip are in effect cut and joined to
create more complex plan shapes, as for example L, T, E, F, H, U, or courtyard forms, all
of which are common among larger office buildings, schools, hotels, and apartment
buildings. The lengths of the component strips, and the dimensions of courtyards, can
be varied ad lib, so long as opposing window walls are separated by sufficient distances
to preserve daylighting. As the number of storeys is increased (assuming a fixed storey
height, and other things being equal), so this separation distance must be made greater,
if daylighting standards are to be maintained. This applies to daylit facades where they
belong either to the same building, or to separate but neighbouring buildings. March
(1972) developed a theoretical model of the effects of such constraints on built form.
The question arises whether from an energy point of view, and for the classificatory
purposes of the NDBS database, it is important to capture such differences in overall
plan shape created by the assembly of sidelit strips in various arrangements. Does the
fact that a plan shape is formed from a series of courtyards, for example, as opposed to
linear slabs or free-standing towers, resultöother things being equalöin reduced
standards of daylighting, say, and thus in a significantly increased use of electricity
for lighting? Does it result in reduced solar gains because of overshadowing in the
courtyards? Is the orientation of facades important, or can this be treated as effectively
random for analytical purposes, when large numbers of buildings are considered
A classification of built forms 81

together, with approximately equal areas of sidelit facade being exposed to all points of
the compass? All these are empirical questions, to which some answers might be found
from energy surveys of actual buildings, or through simulation.
A rough-and-ready system of letter codes has been used to make crude descriptions
of the plan shapes of all built forms covered in the four surveys. In practice, however,
these have not been used, and the principal system of classification simply distinguishes
forms as being composed of sidelit strips and otherwise ignores plan configuration.
(The fact that total external wall length is measured accurately for every form never-
theless means that some effects of the lengths, bends, and junctions of strips are taken
into account.)

Composite assemblies of built forms

We have already introduced the idea that buildings of complex form are to be decom-
posed, for the purposes of classification, into separate built form components, where these
components may possibly be assigned to different classificatory categories. Figure 5(a)
illustrates, for example, the 19th century public baths in Swindon, still in use today as a
health centre. The plan is complex; indeed it is difficult to understand even from detailed
drawings. One of its oddest features is a `crack' in the basic rectangular layoutöa sort of
alley, open to the skyövisible at bottom right in the drawing.
The overall form may nevertheless be decomposed into a number of simpler
components, as in figure 5(b). Here it is easy to pick out four toplit halls, two of
them containing swimming pools (centre and lower left) and two for other uses. There
is some toplit and artificially lit cellular space accommodating Turkish baths. Other-
wise the building consists largely of cellular office space, lit mostly from one side only,
the bulk of it in an L-shaped `strip' along two outer edges of the plan. The present
classification would categorise these various component forms separately and preserve

(a)

(b)

Figure 5. (a) The complex form of the 19th century public baths in Swindon, and (b) this form
decomposed into simple built form elements.
82 J P Steadman, H R Bruhns, P A Rickaby, F E Brown, S Holtier, B Gakovic

little or nothing of the spatial relationships in which they are assembled, again on the
assumption thatöto a first order of approximation ösuch relations are not significant
for energy use. [The fact that some of the built form components are contiguous and
share internal wallsöshown shaded in figure 5(b)öis nonetheless allowed for in the
calculation of external wall lengths and areas. Only walls which are genuinely exposed
are counted, as explained in Holtier et al (2000).]
As the classification scheme applies only at the level of component forms, and the
precise spatial configurations in which these are arranged are (with a few exceptions)
ignored, we need not be greatly concerned with these composite assemblies as such.
Just for the sake of illustration, however, figures 6 to 11 show in schematic form just a
few of the more common ways in which built form components are found in combina-
tion in the existing building stock. It should be emphasised that these composite
assemblies do not in themselves correspond to categories in the classification scheme.
Nor is this anything more than an arbitrary selection of a few possibilities. [A technique
for representation which could allow complex built form assemblies to be described and
enumerated in more systematic and quantified fashion is outlined in Steadman (1998).]
Daylit cellular space may be placed on top of lower floors consisting of artificially lit
open plan space. Such combinations are frequently seen in buildings in which offices or
flats are provided above large shops. Figure 6 shows a typical case, filling the entire
width of a site fronting, say, onto a commercial high street. The end walls are thus party
walls. Two shop floors fill the complete site at ground and first-floor levels. A daylit
double-aspect strip of office accommodation is then placed on the street frontage at
second and successive floor levels. Clearly, other positions and arrangements of sidelit
strips on top of open-plan space are possible within the constraints of daylighting.

Figure 6. Schematic terraced building consisting of daylit cellular

space above artificially lit open-plan space.

Further possibilities for composite assemblies arise by the placing of different

categories of space side by side (as in the Swindon public baths). A hybrid arrangement
of this kind which often occurs in practice is one where rectangular halls are surrounded,
perhaps on all sides, by single-aspect sidelit strips (figure 7). The halls can be sidelit from
any exposed sides, lit by clerestories, or toplit if they are completely surrounded. It may be
that the halls are of sufficient storey height that they are equal in height to two or more
floors of the surrounding daylit strips. Actual examples of such arrangements are to be
found in court buildings (courtrooms surrounded by cellular offices), theatres (the
auditorium surrounded by foyers, bars, greenrooms, etc) or buildings for sports such
as gymnasia or swimming pools.
Another possible type of combination is for single-aspect sidelit strips to be set
along some or all of the outer edges of an open-plan space, or around the outside of
A classification of built forms 83

Figure 7. Schematic building consisting of a hall surrounded by

single-aspect daylit cellular space.

Figure 8. Schematic building consisting of single-aspect daylit

cellular space set along the edge of artificially lit open-plan space.

artificially lit cellular space (figure 8). Thus daylit offices may be arranged along the
sides of a large shop, especially on upper floors. Or individual cellular offices may be
placed around the outer edges of a very deep office floor, whereas uses not requiring
daylightöcomputer rooms, post rooms, telephone relay rooms, etcöare grouped in
the interior. [This is equivalent to what Joedicke (1962) calls a `triple zone' office plan.]
Sidelit strips can be combined with open-plan space devoted to industrial uses, as in
the classic small factory or garage, consisting of a `front office' and an adjoining shed
or sheds behind (figure 9). Another typical arrangement in factories or warehouses is
for a single-aspect strip of cellular space, on one or more storeys, to be created inside
shed, along one or more of its sides, the remainder of the shed being given over to
open-plan space. (This particular situation is so common that we have, for conveni-
ence, given it a special classificatory category as a `composite' form.)

Figure 9. Schematic building consisting of single-aspect daylit cellular

space adjoining an open-plan shed.

It is possible for halls to be incorporated within systems of courts which otherwise

consist of daylit strips. This arrangement is often found in schools, where the assembly
hall, dining room, or gymnasium is integrated within a courtyard pattern of classrooms
and staff offices. In the headquarters of a local authority, say, a debating chamber
might similarly be embedded in what is otherwise a sidelit cellular office complex
(figure 10). One familiar composite form, which combines the different categories of
84 J P Steadman, H R Bruhns, P A Rickaby, F E Brown, S Holtier, B Gakovic

Figure 10. Schematic building consisting of a hall

embedded in courts composed of double-aspect daylit
cellular space.

Figure 11. Schematic `slab-on-podium' building. The

podium consists of single-aspect cellular space sur-
rounding artificially lit space. The slab is made up of
double-aspect daylit cellular space.

space in both the horizontal and the vertical directions, is the `slab-on-podium' office
building (figure 11). Here the podium, of perhaps two or three storeys, consists of a
single-aspect sidelit strip around a central core of artificially lit space; the slab on top is
pure double-aspect sidelit space.

Small single-room forms

`Cellular space' and `open-plan space' (whether daylit or artificially lit) are descriptions
which make sense only as distinct categories when the total area of floor space is large.
Consider a building consisting on each floor level of a single room on the scale of a
domestic living room, a school classroom, or an office for one or two persons. Is this
cellular space or open-plan space? It is not really either, because there is no repetition of
`cells' and the extent of the plan is not great enough to call it `open'. We need a way of
categorising these `single-room forms'öthat is, forms with one principal room per
flooröwhich distinguishes them, essentially by size, from isolated halls, because there
are large numbers of them in the nondomestic stock. In terms of activities, they include
small free-standing shops and kiosks, single offices in temporary structures such as site
huts and `portakabins', garages for one or two cars, and detached public lavatories.
A classification of built forms 85

As mentioned earlier, because these forms when detached are free from the constraints
of close-packing in the horizontal plane, their plan shapes may often depart from
orthogonality.

A system for classifying built forms

We are now in a position to present the system for classifying built forms, based on the
principles already outlined. A basic distinction is drawn between what have been termed
principal forms and parasitic forms. The principal forms can be classified in terms of the
six basic categories of space, with variants, as described. There may be other minor built
form elements, however, attached around the periphery, or sitting on the roof, which do
not fall easily into this six-way classification. If such elements are very minor in scale
they can safely be ignored. But where they account for significant amounts of floor
space, and especially if that floor space is heated or otherwise serviced, they ought
arguably to be included in the classification of forms. We are referring here to such
architectural entities as large porches, lean-to extensions (including lean-to conserva-
tories), portes cocheres or canopies (including canopies over loading bays or over the
pumps of petrol stations). None of these would be found in isolation, as buildings in
their own right. They exist always as additions to other structuresöhence the term
`parasitic'.
The examples just cited are all elements which would necessarily be attached
around a principal built form at ground (or entrance) level only. Further examples of
parasitic built forms are to be found in those multistorey buildings where the vertical
circulation is removed from the main building masses and is provided in separate
towers attached to the sides or ends of those masses. Where such a building is flat-
roofed, the lift machinery and other plant may be housed in a distinct structure or
structures on the roof. (In other cases, both vertical circulation and plant may very
well be incorporated within the principal forms.)
We will provide a full classification of parasitic forms shortly. Table 1 lists the
categories for principal built forms, together with an indicationöfor explanation and
guidance only, and not by any means forming a part of the classification itself öas to
the typical range of activities found in each type of space. Figure 12 (see over) shows
the categories diagrammatically. The drawings should be read in every case as para-
meterised descriptions. All plan areas, numbers of storeys, roof slopes, etc are to be
understood as variables (although in some cases with restricted ranges).
The sidelit strip forms are shown as straight lengths, of constant depth, where
actual buildings might consist of multiple strips, of varying depth, even curved in
plan, assembled into complex plan configurations as already described. Artificially lit
forms have no theoretical limits on their depths in plan. They are illustrated here with
simple rectangular plans, although in reality their plan shapes could be many and
various. Again, the indication of the roof forms is quite schematic. Each built form
category might be associated with any of a variety of forms of roof. The original coding
of the data from the four towns recorded actual roof geometry and angles of roof slope
in some detail (Brown et al, 2000). That coding is therefore not duplicated in the
present system.
Some comments are in order, on individual codes. For convenience, the respective
categories for sidelit strips, both cellular (CS) and open plan (OD), have been sub-
divided into forms with between one and four storeys (CS4, OD4) and forms with five
storeys and more (CS5, OD5). This corresponds broadlyöalthough not in every
instanceöto a distinction between forms in which staircase access alone is possible
and forms for which lifts are necessary.
86 J P Steadman, H R Bruhns, P A Rickaby, F E Brown, S Holtier, B Gakovic

Table 1. Principal form types.

CS4 Daylit (sidelit) cellular strip, 1 to 4 storeys

CS5 Daylit (sidelit) cellular strip, 5 storeys or more
OD4 Daylit (sidelit) open-plan strip, 1 to 4 storeys
OD5 Daylit (sidelit) open-plan strip, 5 storeys or more
CT1 Toplit cellular, single-storey
HD Daylit hall, either sidelit or toplit (or both)
HA Artificially lit hall
OS Open-plan space in a single shed
OC1 Open-plan continuous single-storey space
OG Open-plan car parking or trucking deck
OA Artificially lit open-plan multistorey space
SR Single-room form
SSR String of single-room forms
RA Railway arch
Composite form types with special codes
CDO Daylit (sidelit) cellular strip around some or all edges of artificially lit or toplit
open-plan space
CDH Daylit (sidelit) cellular strip around some or all edges of artificially lit or toplit hall
CDS Open-plan shed with daylit cellular strip or strips inside, along one or more edges

Open-plan space other than sidelit has been divided into a number of subcatego-
ries, based on properties of form which have essentially to do with structural systems.
[Whether built forms have framed or load-bearing construction is nevertheless classi-
fied separately in the NDBS database (Brown et al, 2000).] Thus `open-plan space in a
single shed' (OS) is distinguished from `open-plan continuous single-storey space'
(OC1) which would be provided typically in framed structures without internal parti-
tions and roofed with monitors or multiple pitched roofs. The separate category for `car
parking and trucking decks' (OG) is the one case in which we break our self-imposed
rule of separating activity from built form in the process of classification. This is
because of their very distinctive form of construction, their access ramps, low ceilings
and possibly sloping floors, and the fact that as a consequence such space is most
unlikely to be converted to other uses. Some categories specify whether daylit forms
are sidelit or toplit or both. (Although in practice it was not always resolved, from
street surveys alone, whether built forms in the four towns were in fact toplit, or lit
wholly by artificial light. Some categories therefore allow for this uncertainty.)
A category is allowed for `single-room forms' (SR) and another for `strings of
single-room forms' (SSR). The latter might seem like another way of referring to a
sidelit strip, and indeed the distinction is not absolutely clear-cut. The SSR category is
used, however, in those cases, typically in factory complexes and depots, where a series
of contiguous but structurally separate small huts or stores or offices have been strung
along an access road or the edge of a site. Each is entered separately from the exterior
and there is no continuous internal circulation. A separate code (RA) is allowed for
arches in railway viaducts converted to useable accommodation because of their
special structural and geometric character.
It is the principal intention of the classification, as explained, to distinguish forms
according to the basic lighting and room-size categories and to describe complex
assemblies in terms of these simpler components. This rule has, however, been broken,
because of the contingencies of coding, in three frequently occurring cases. Special
`composite' codes are provided for a cellular sidelit strip around artificially lit or toplit
open plan space (CDO); a cellular daylit strip around a hall or halls (CDH); and, as
already mentioned, a cellular sidelit space within an open plan shed (CDS). Where
A classification of built forms 87

HD (sidelit) HD (toplit)
SR

CS4

OS
SSR

RA

CS5 OC1

OD4

OG
CDO

OD5

CDS

CT1 OA

Figure 12. Diagrams of principal forms (see table 1 for key). Arrows show the directions of
daylighting. (No diagram is shown for HA, `artificially lit hall', which is equivalent to HD in
form.)
88 J P Steadman, H R Bruhns, P A Rickaby, F E Brown, S Holtier, B Gakovic

Table 2. Parasite form types.

AC Attached open-sided canopy

AG Attached glasshouse or conservatory
AI Monopitch aisle
AR Covered street or arcade
AT Atrium
BA Basement
BL Large balcony
CB Circulation bridge
CL Covered enclosed ground-level circulation link
CT Attached circulation tower
EX Small single-storey extension
OR Occupied pitched roof or attic
PC Porte cochere
PR Roof-level plant room

possible, use of these codes has been avoided. They have only been necessary where
buildings had already been broken down geometrically into floor polygons in the
Smallworld GIS in ways which were not compatible with the simple built form cate-
gories.
Table 2 lists all the parasite forms in the classification, and figure 13 gives illus-
trations. Note that atria and covered streets or arcades (as found typically in shopping
centres) have been treated as parasites rather than as open-plan space because of their
special structural and glazing characteristics and the fact that they would never exist as
independent entities. The decision was taken initially to treat basements (other than
basement car parks) and occupied pitched roofs or attics as parasites, rather than
include them with the principal built forms. In subsequent analysis, however, this
decision has been reversed (see Steadman et al, 2000b).
A few additional codes are provided for other subsidiary forms, comparable with
parasites, but which are not actually attached to their `hosts'. Some of these are
specialised structures or large machines, for example training towers for firefighting
practice, car washes, and bus washes. Outdoor swimming pools have been coded,
despite their not being `buildings', because of their use of energy.
EX

OR
AG

PR AI PO
CL

CB
CT
AR
BA

AT BL

PC AC

Figure 13. Diagrams of parasite forms (see table 2 for key).

A classification of built forms 89

The classification applied

All floor space at the 3350 addresses in the four townsöamounting to some 4 million m2
in totalöhas been coded according to this classification. There are nevertheless some
indeterminate boundaries between the categories, which made this process slightly more
arbitrary than it might otherwise have been. Readers will have noticed that, although
distinctions between types of space are based in principle on room size, no actual limits
on area or plan dimensions have been specified. The precise thresholds, for example
between a large cellular room and an extent of open-plan space, or a large cellular room
and a hall, are left undefined. `Small single-storey extensions' are treated as parasite
forms, without quantifying what is meant by `small'. Another kind of uncertainty in
coding occurs where a continuous extent of open-plan space is partly daylit and partly
artificially lit but the precise boundary is difficult to define (and would be, even with
access to actual measurements of light levels).
These problems aside, it proved straightforward in practice to assign the major part
of the floor space in the four towns to the categories in tables 1 and 2. But the coding
was hampered in other cases by the fact that neither internal plans nor detailed data
on artificial lighting were available. Although the classification is focused on external
envelopes, the forms of these envelopes are nonetheless determined in part by the
character of the internal layout. The value of any analytical results would no doubt
have been even greater, had the built form categories been that much more sharply and
quantitatively defined. All this said, the data set of the four towns provides a unique
`laboratory' for investigating built forms and their relationships, both with activities
and with building construction, at a statistical level. (It should be emphasised that all
floor areas and wall lengths are measured with great precision and that all data on
storey heights and roof slopes are also reasonably reliable.)
Table 3 gives the total gross external floor area of floor space devoted to each type
of principal form in the four towns. The picture is dominated by two types, the sidelit
cellular up to four storeys (CS4) and the composite sidelit cellular around artificially lit
open plan (CDO). The former accounts for more than half of all floor space, and the
latter for nearly a quarter. The majority of the corresponding activities are offices,
shops, and hotels with shallow and deep plans respectively. The `shed' types OS and
CDS, and the single-storey open plan OC1, between them account for some 15% of
floor space, the majority used for warehouses, workshops, and factories, as would be
expected. These same uses, together with shops and offices, account for much of the
OA open-plan artificially lit multistorey space (5.5% of the total). Several principal
form types are negligible in terms of floor area, notably CT1, CDH, and SSR.
In Steadman (1994) some statistics were given to illustrate the relationship of built
forms to activities in these data. For every built form type, the floor area was com-
puted for each of the whole range of activities, classified according to `primary descrip-
tions' used by the Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue (Bruhns, 2000). These
analyses confirmed the points made at the beginning of this paper about the flexibility of
many types of built form. Activities such as shop and office are found in almost all of
the principal form types. Conversely, there are certain types of form, notably sidelit
cellular space up to four storeys (CS4), associated with almost every activity other than
telephone exchanges and multistorey car parks. At the same time, there are forms
which tend to be more restricted in the range of activities accommodated: thus daylit
halls (HD) are concentrated mostly in schools, sports centres, lawcourts, churches, and
village and community halls, as would be expected. The least flexible form is the car
parking and trucking deck (OG), which is of course defined in activity terms: but even
this is associated with shops and offices, as well as multistorey car parks. In Steadman
et al (2000b) these results are translated into `built form recipes', expressing the typical
90 J P Steadman, H R Bruhns, P A Rickaby, F E Brown, S Holtier, B Gakovic

Table 3. Total gross floor areas (square metres) in principal form types, in the buildings surveyed
in four English towns.

Type Floor area, m2 percentage

CS4 1 343 247 33.9

CS5 207 516 5.2
OD4 36 615 0.9
OD5 79 632 2.0
CDO 771 402 19.5
CT1 4 204 0.1
HD 33 967 0.9
HA 26 555 0.7
CDH 9 114 0.2
OS 224 676 5.7
CDS 106 454 2.7
OC1 245 359 6.2
OG 173 558 4.4
OA 216 322 5.5
SR 23 456 0.6
SSR 4 087 0.1
RA 20 378 0.5
Parasitic forms
BA 245 809 6.2
CT 32 902 0.8
EX 31 992 0.8
OR 37 896 1.0
All others 84 032 2.1
Total 3 959 173

built form composition of premises in a range of size bands devoted to different groups
of activities.
Some statistics are also illustrated in Steadman et al (2000b) for the relationships
between built forms and the constructional characteristics of buildings in the four
towns. These include the occurrence of structural system types (framed or load-bearing)
in built forms of different types and sizes; the relationship of exposed wall areas and
glazing areas to floor areas, in different types of built form, especially the sidelit types;
and the association of different geometric forms of roof with built forms of different
types. Such relationships are being used to make inferences about construction, materi-
als, and the surface areas of buildings in the national stock. Beyond this immediate
application, the work takes the first steps towards a new kind of quantitative study of
building morphology, devoted not to theoretical forms but to a mass of empirical data
on existing buildings. Such a programme could not be contemplated without a resource
such as the four towns database, in which the geometry and construction of very large
numbers of actual buildings are fully and consistently represented along with the
patterns of activity which they accommodate.
References
Baker N, Hoch D, Steemers, 1994 The LT Method Version 1.2 Commission of the European
Communities Directorate-General XI, Cambridge Architectural Research and Martin Centre
for Architectural and Urban Studies, University of Cambridge, Cambridge
Bemis A F, 1936 The Evolving House (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
Brown F E, Steadman J P, 1991a, ``The morphology of British housing: an empirical basis for policy
and research. Part 1: functional and dimensional characteristics'' Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design 18 277 ^ 299
A classification of built forms 91

Brown F E, Steadman J P, 1991b, ``The morphology of British housing: an empirical basis for policy
and research. Part 2: topological characteristics'' Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design 18 385 ^ 415
Brown F E, Rickaby P A, Bruhns H R, Steadman J P, 2000, ``Surveys of nondomestic buildings
in four English towns'' Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 27 11 ^ 24
Bruhns H R, 2000, ``Property taxation data for nondomestic buildings in England and Wales:''
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 27 33 ^ 49
Bruhns H R, Rickaby P A, Steadman J P, Moss S, Herring H, 2000, ``Types, numbers and floor
areas of nondomestic premises in England and Wales, classified by activity'' Environment
and Planning B: Planning and Design 27 forthcoming
Clay F, 1902 Modern School Buildings (Batsford, London)
Department of Education and Science and Welsh Office, 1977 A Study of School Building (HMSO,
London)
Ham R (Ed.), 1972 Theatre Planning (Architectural Press, London)
Holtier S, Steadman J P, Smith M G, 2000, ``Three-dimensional representation of urban built
form in a GIS'' Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 27 51 ^ 72
Joedicke J, 1962 Office Buildings (Crosby Lockwood, London)
Klose D, 1965 Multi-storey Car Parks and Garages (Architectural Press, London)
Kru«ger M J T, 1977 An Approach to Built Form Connectivity at an Urban Scale PhD thesis, School of
Architecture, University of Cambridge, Cambridge
March L J, 1972, ``Elementary models of built forms'', in Urban Space and Structures
Eds L Martin, L March (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 55 ^ 96
Steadman J P, 1994, ``Built forms and building types: some speculations'' Environment and
Planning B: Planning and Design 21 s7 ^ s30
Steadman J P, 1998, ``Sketch for an archetypal building'' Environment and PlanningB: Planning
and Design 25 (Anniversary Issue) 92 ^ 105
Steadman J P, Bruhns H R, Rickaby P A, 2000a, ``An introduction to the national non-domestic
building stock database'' Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 27 3 ^ 10
Steadman J P, Bruhns H R, Gakovic B, 2000 b,``Inferences about built form, construction and fabric
in the nondomestic building stock of England and Wales'' Environment and Planning B: Planning
and Design 27 forthcoming
 ß 2000 a Pion publication printed in Great Britain

View publication stats