A housing Typology

Atelier04/studio04
Hand-out term 2

Extract from: Courtyard houses

Günter Pfeifer and Per Brauneck editor

Birkhäuser Publisher
Typology
[Typology is an] approach that isolates the attributes of the architectural coher-
ence, identifies them as characteristics, in order to then compare them with
similarly abstracted attributes from other contexts and to define similarities or
differences. Since Quatremère de Quincy at the latest, the history of architecture
has described this kind of approach by the term typology, and understands it as
the abstraction of formal attributes into a principle, called type, that describes
the commonalities of a series of different, but historically concrete models. From
the beginning, this systematic and abstracted view includes the possibilities of a
guideline for action beyond literal imitation (“imitation par principe “) as well as a
tool for comparative architectural criticism.1

Sorting perceptions according to certain recurring characteristics and principles is

an important element of cognitive process. To derive standards from it and to sys-
tematise certain patterns are two principles that not only form the basis of every
science but also of the human capability to perceive and communicate.
To reduce perceptions to certain recurring patterns, regular geometries or har-
monies is a universal principle; therefore, the term typology has a long history in
architecture and architectural theory. In this light, typologies in architecture docu-
ment the changing requirement profiles of certain buildings or spatial systems.
There are different typological categories. Typologies on an urban planning level
deal with blocks, row or detached houses; building typologies examine residential
dwellings, farmhouses, theatres or industrial plants, and floor plan typologies are
significantly characterised by the access system. While the room as a functional
space with a specific assignment is a relatively constant unit irrespective of its
size, the typology of circulation areas correlates individual rooms and, through
different floor plans, creates different types such as patio houses, apartment
houses providing access to various numbers of flats, houses with exterior cor-
ridors, etc.

However, a typologically oriented approach or work method begins long before

the categorisation of certain types of appearance. “ ...The type, a knowledge-
able typologist once said, is not invented, not designed, not developed. The type
emerges, grows, culminates, decays, flattens . Types are ‘organically’ concrete.
These terms might seem diffuse, might lead in the wrong direction; but they ac-
curately highlight the difference between type and an objective prototype.”2,

When consulting an encyclopedia3, we learn that the term “ type” derives from the
Greek word “ typos” meaning imprint and originally meant the imprint on a coin .
Later, the term stood for archetype, antetype, pattern or figure; in fact it referred
to both the real figure as well as that of archetypes or ideas existing in the spiri-
tual world. In typological science, the term typology can be understood as a term
purely used to classify individuals within a group - as for example in zoology or
botany - or on the contrary as a term for an ideal. Hereby, most often a distinction
is made between the most frequent average type of one group of items or per-
sons and the ideal type. Since the ancient world, philosophy has understood the
idea of type in the sense of a generally characteristic archetypal figure underlying
an individual element: Plato understood it as an idea, Aristotle as a shape, the
Middle Ages as a being . Typology as the science of type therefore is a scientific
description and a classification of a field of items into groups of unitary complexes
of characteristics.

In his essay “On Typology’” Rafael Moneo gives an overview of the research of
typology in architecture. For Moneo, the question of typology shakes the founda-
tion of architecture. The concept of the archetype defines the current architectural
object in relation to its origin . Insofar, the typology theory is a theory of the es-
sential, the beginnings of architecture.
On the one hand, the architectural object forms a self-contained unit, unique and
not further reducible; on the other hand, it can be seen as “one among many”,
building on a few repeating, in principle equal elements. Also, the process that
produces architecture is originally based on repeatability, just like any other tech-
nical process. Furthermore, our entire way of thinking and seeing is controlled by
typological perception patterns that are based on repetitions. Our language as
well is structured in such a way that it sorts comparable objects into groups and
thereby systematises them. Ultimately, the entire human structure of perception
is based “a priori” on typologies. A type belongs to a group of objects of the same
formal structure. To differentiate between types means to sort individual elements
of the same structure into a certain group. This sorting process, which at the
same time is a thought process, runs on different levels with different degrees of
accuracy. Uniqueness originates from the countless possibilities to create rela-
tionships between individual typological elements. By using this linking process,
architecture is created in the same way it is perceived. The result is a direct inner
connection between man and object.

At the beginning of the typological examination stands the desire to simplify, re-
ducing shapes to their basic geometries. However, typology relates to much more
than to the reduction of formal geometries. The spectrum of typological examina-
tion options ranges from construction details to socio-political interrelations. Ty-
pological order, therefore, is no singular phenomenon, but rather it characterises
the manifold forms of appearance of the built environment. The complex interre-
lations between individual elements is re-materialised depending on the respec-
tive context. The type is not a device to justify mechanical repetition. Typological
examinations rather form the framework for a dialectic discourse within the history
of construction, which generates the “new “ by transforming the “old.” The process
of the transformation of a type is the result of changing user requirements, leaps
in scale, overlap of different types, a modified context, or other mechanisms.

Antoine Quatremère de Quincy5 was the first to formulate the idea of a typological
architecture at the end of the 18th century. At that time, social and technical in-
novations called into question the traditional role of architecture. Typologies were
perceived by considering the logics of form, the intellect, changing user require-
ments and their historical development.

During the 19th century, Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand6 interpreted typology in the

sense of an exemplary prototype. He comprehends the type as a mechanism
standing between form and building program. His theory concentrates on com-
position and arrangement. Durand tries to derive the composition from functional
interrelations, and thus wants to overcome the restraints of the traditional form
canon. By the end of the century, the Beaux-Arts school further developed this
interpretation of the type as a stylistic device. The emergence of architecture
schools created an increasing demand for a standardised curriculum. Durand
tried to satisfy this requirement with catalogued typologies.

Modernity broke the continuity of using typologies. Form, content and mean-
ing in architecture became detached. The exterior appearance of architecture
developed into an independent category and the architectural object into a frag-
ment that is unhinged from its context and the historical development process.
Modernity rejected anything that , in whatever way, invoked history. Therefore,
it dismissed the idea of a type as well. Design was to start from scratch, and the
architectural object was to become an industrial product. Recurring elements or
manufacturing methods were not conceived typologically, but rather in terms of
industrial mass production. However, with Le Corbusier at the latest the contradic-
tion between the architectural artefact on the one hand and the industrial proto-
type on the other became apparent. Due to the comparison of architecture with
industrial production, the typology concept had to be re-interpreted.
Functionalism with its simple structure of cause and effect sufficed to substantiate
architectural operations without having to refer to the historic continuity in form
of typologies. Architectural elements were exclusively defined by their use and
based on the ideal of machining. However, when trying to explain the formal and
structural continuity of the central European city, modernity failed . Because, in
this context, designing buildings has to be viewed as a process bound in time .
In contrast, the concept of typology can provide an explanation for the continuity
on different levels of time and scale by interpreting the city as an organism. This
organism is composed of patterns that derive from the amplification of individual
cells. This approach, which prevailed during the 1960s, is founded on the com-
plex interrelations between the whole and its components. Various studies of the
time proposed a morphological method of analysis. Giulio Argan7, for example,
very pragmatically returned to Quatremères’ definition. He differentiates between
the typological moment and the moment of formal definition. According to him,
types are generated by the overlap of formal regularities. Fundamental formal
commonalities are the source for the relatedness of different buildings. In this
sense, type means the inner formal structure of a building.

Ernesto Rogers8 contrasts this formal meaning of typology with a methodological

approach. He argues that architectural knowledge is directly based on the basic
assumption of typology. The typological concept categorises individual steps of
action and thereby creates the framework for attaining architectural cognition .
According to Rogers’ theory, the design process begins with the identification of
the type, which already comprises the superordinate problem . The subsequent
process targets at isolating the problem and at recognising its multifaceted effects
. Hereby, the identification of a type is very subjective and varies according to per-
sonal perception and ideological background.

During the 1970s, Aldo Rossi9 created a systematic and complex typological
strategy by interrelating morphological typology with a traditional understanding of
the term type. The starting point of his considerations was that a type comprises
and maintains a certain architectural knowledge. The internal logics of a form
represent common architectural knowledge . With this approach he completely
separates the concept of type from the concept of function . Thus, a “hallway” can
be viewed as a basic type that is not merely defined by its relationship with other
elements of the building programme, but also by its discrete quality as a linking
element.

For Alan Harold Colquhoun10, typology is the basis of all communication. Under-
standing and speaking are always founded on existing patterns. Addressing these
patterns generates moments of identification between man and location, and man
and object, respectively. If typologies are understood as such patterns, they imply
certain meanings that are intuitively understood by the observer. The architect, on
the other hand, works with these meanings. He creates shapes - shapes that trig-
ger collective memories - to form a complex statement. By doing this, he bases
his architecture on a certain ideological background.
According to this approach, the creation of architecture itself implies typological
ideas. To create architecture is to communicate meanings through typological
ideas. Therefore, architecture as a discipline of conventions always relates to its
own history, to existing patterns.

In the 1980s, typology was understood more as an instrument. The brothers Leon
and Rob Krier11 , for example, included typological aspects in their different urban
visions. They related to the strong continuity of the architectural element. In this
context , the typological concept in question was understood as an instrument of
composition that serves to produce images. A somewhat romantic reference to
historical types of architecture and urban design formally satisfies the longing for
continuity in times where real continuity seems no longer possible.
The emphasis in the approach of Robert Venturi12 lies in the aspect of communi-
cation . In his architecture, Venturi uses the external, typologically defined form
of appearance as a means of communication - the language of architecture - and
contrasts it with an independent internal structure. With this strategy, the inner
logic of the typological thought is irrelevant. Every element becomes a self-con-
tained object. The unity of form, content and meaning is lost.

In contrast, Rossi’s approach mentioned above seems to maintain the inner logic
of the type even though his way of combining individual types with each other is
provocative. Just by contrasting oppositional types, he evokes the knowledge of
their evolutionary history. Thus, Rossi ‘s approach stands for continuity without
having to cite the formal structures of individual types.

From Rafael Moneo’s summary as well as from the overview provided herein,
we can conclude that the concept of typology does not only stand in a functional
context. It is comparable to a common archaic language that forms the basis of
architecture and reaches far beyond hierarchic categorisation. The individual type
is more than a sheer materialisation of a certain requirement profile. In architec-
ture, the type is a kind of container for knowledge that, through its internal logic,
harmonises form, content and meaning and represents it on different levels of or-
der. Today more than ever, residential architecture is bound in a chain of complex
processes. None of these processes is isolated from the others. On the contrary,
there are numerous value systems within a broad network of interdependencies.
But it seems that all instruments to conceptually solve these complex dependen-
cies have been lost.
Directly tying in with historical types is as futile as trying to develop new types out
of nothing. One sensible and promising approach could be to use the examina-
tion of typologies as a platform on which the dependencies between occupants,
culture, social environment and topography could be and would need to be re-
established.
A comprehensive systems theory in a cybernetic sense (see the introduction in
vol. 2, “Row houses “) could be the key for a modern definition of living, balanc-
ing form , content and meaning in a dynamic equilibrium and relating them to a
constantly and ever-faster changing context.

1 Lack, Peter, Bruno Reichlins gebaute Architekturkritik, VDG Verlag and database for humanities, Weimar
1995, 2nd authorative ed., p. 93 f .
2 Teut, Anna, ‘ Von Typen und Normen, Massreglern und Massregelungen ‘ , in: Architektur und technisches
Denken , Daidalos no.18, Dec 15, 1985, p. 53.
3 Meyers Enzyklopädisches Lexikon in 25 vols., 9th ed., Mannheim 1979.
4 Moneo, Rafael, ‘On Typology”, in: Oppositions, 1978, no. 13, pp. 23-45.
5 Quincy, Ouatremère de, Encyclopedie methodique d ‘Architecture, Paris 1825.
6 Durand, Jean-Nicolas-Louis, Precis des Leçons d’architecture donnees à I’Ecoie Royale Polytechnique, Paris
1817-1819. Partie graphique des Cours d ‘Architecture, Paris 1821, reprint in 1 vol., Nordlingen 1985.
Durand, Jean-Nicolas-Louis, Abriss der Vorlesungen uber Baukunst gehalten an der königlichen polyrechnisch-
en Schule zu Paris, 2 vols., Karlsruhe 1831.
Durand, Jean-Nicolas-Louis, Legrand, J. G., Recueil et Parallele des Edifices en tout genre, anciens et mod-
ernes, remarquable par leur Beautè, par leur Grandeur ou par leur Singularitè. Essai sur I’Histoire gènerale de
l’Architecture. reprint of the ed., Brussels (no year) and Liege 1842, Nordlinqen 1986.
7 Argan, Giulio Carlo, ‘ On the Typology of Architecture, ‘ in: Architectural Design, no. 12, 1963, pp. 561-562 .
8 Rogers, Ernesto, ‘ The Problem of Building within an Existing Environment, ‘ in : Zodiac, no. 3, 1990, pp. 8-1 1.
9 Rossi, Aldo, The Architecture of the City, reprint edition, Cambridge (MA)1984. Rossi, Aldo, Das Konzept des
Typus, in : Arch+, no. 37, 1978, p. 39 fl .
10 Colquhoun, Alan Harold and Kenneth Frampton, Essays in Architectural Criticism . Modern Architecture and
Historical Change, Cambridge (MA) 1985.
Colquhoun, Alan Harold, Modernity and the Classical Tradition. Architectural Essays 1980-1987, Cambridge
(MA) 1989.
11 Krier, Leon, Houses, Palaces, Cities, London 1995.
Krier, Leon, Choice or Fate, London 1998.
Krier, Rob, M. Graves, H. Ibelings, H. Bodenschatz, P. Meuser, Town Spaces, Basel, Berlin, Boston 2003.
Krier, Rob, Architecture and Urban Design, London 1993.
12 Venturi, Robert, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, New York 2002 (2nd edition ).
 Floor plan types
The different possibilities for arranging floor plans within the
courtyard house type are primarily determined by the position and
the proportion of the courtyard. As it is the dete rmining factor for
exposure to daylight of the rooms within the house, all other pa-
rameters such as access, zoning of the floor plan and orientation
play a subordinate role.

Garden courtyard house

This house type is organised around an enclosed garden court-
yard. Due to enclosure on four sides, the open space has a very
intimate character. As the house type can be attached to neigh-
bouring units on three sides it is ideal suited for dense urban
housing development structures.

Shared courtyard house

The shared courtyard house consists of several building volumes
which, to their specific arrangement, create a courtyard. Histori-
cally, the shared courtyard house type has its orig ins in farms
located in.a municipal area enclosed by city walls. These farms
used to accommodate a stable, barn, servants’ and main house
on a confined lot.

L-shaped house
The L-shaped floor plan offers maximum daylight exposure and
economic use of space. However, the organisation of the f loor
plan proves difficult when options for attaching neighbouring units
are to be provided on several sides of the house.

Groupe of L-shaped houses

A group of L-shaped houses illustrates the potent ial of the L-
shaped house type with in a housing development structure. Intel-
ligent floor plan zoning in terms of orientation and staggering of
levels can create very efficient housing development structures.

Patio house
The patio house type ut ilises several small courtyards cut out of
the building volume to naturally light the floor space with the addit
ional benef it of creating interest ing spatial relationships. Individ-
ual patios can be arranged on different levels. In combination with
courtyards, this allows for highly versatile floor plans.

Atrium-type house
The at rium-type house is derived from the dwell ing type of the
classical Greek and Roman ant iquity. Contrary to the patio house
in wh ich one or more courtyards can be arranged in different
locat ions within the floor plan, the courtyard of the atrium-type
house is the spatial centre of the house. The inner courtyard also
serves as a circulation zone, recreational space and access zone
to adjacent rooms

Page 
Page 
Page 
Page 
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36