The Journal of Architecture

ISSN: 1360-2365 (Print) 1466-4410 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjar20

Type versus typology Introduction

Sam Jacoby
To cite this article: Sam Jacoby (2015) Type versus typology Introduction, The Journal of
Architecture, 20:6, 931-937, DOI: 10.1080/13602365.2015.1115600
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2015.1115600

Published online: 22 Jan 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 279

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjar20
Download by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UL]

Date: 21 November 2016, At: 04:14

931
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 20
Number 6

Type versus typology

Introduction

Sam Jacoby

During the eighteenth century, conventions of imitation and truth-to-nature were replaced by concepts
of abstraction and objectivity. This profoundly
changed the knowledge and practice of many disciplines. With disciplinary knowledge commonly
thought to derive from the past and to be defined
by a problem of origins, the very search for origins
disclosed a richer problematic: that of development.
The enquiries into development had several implications. If knowledge was not a static or universal
truth but continuously developing, then considering
the present and future was at least as vital as concerns with the past. This led to an understanding of
history as contingent and development as contextual, which meant that explanations were only possible in relative and comparative terms. Consequently,
classification became important to establish comparable, shared criteria. By the early nineteenth century,
the introduction of type as a conceptual and typology as a formal means of comparison in architecture
provided complementary ideas through which both
an existing knowledge of form and a modern form
of knowledge could be consolidated.
Type originally denoted a medium of non-imitative reproduction, as in its use in Johann Gutenbergs
modern printing press in the mid-fifteenth century.
Similarly, typology indicated a reasoning by
analogy, with the study of scriptures interpreting
the Old Testament as prefiguring the events of the
New Testament.1 Typology was a correlating of
# 2015 RIBA Enterprises

Architectural Association School of Architecture,

London, United Kingdom
(Authors e-mail address: sam@aaschool.ac.uk)
symbolic meaning, and not just a study of types.
The religious meaning still defined the late eighteenth-century entry of Type in Denis Diderots
and Jean-Baptiste le Rond dAlemberts Encyclopdie, ou Dictionnaire raisonn des sciences, des
arts et des mtiers (175172). When the Encyclopdie was subsequently modernised by separating
it into discipline-specific dictionaries, AntoineChrysostome Quatremre de Quincy was the first
formally to introduce the concept of type to architecture in the third volume of his Encyclopdie mthodique: Architecture in 1825. His secular definition
distinguished between type as an epistemological,
metaphysical and aesthetic category, and a model
serving the methodical approach to design. This
asserted their interrelationship but also a hierarchy,
with type embodying an irreducible and generic
idea through which a principled reasoning was
bestowed on the rules of the typological model for
design.
Re-examining Quatremre, some one hundred
and forty years later in the context of architectural
design, Giulio Carlo Argan defined typology as
not just a classifying or statistical process but one
carried out for definite formal ends, with the analysis and reduction of the physical functions of buildings and their configurations taking place in a
typological series.2 Following on from Argan,
Aldo Rossi posited that type is the very idea of architecture, that which is closest to its essence, whereas
typology is the analytical moment of architecture,
1360-2365 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2015.1115600

932
Type versus typology
Introduction
Sam Jacoby

through which a formal constant in a study of types

of elements that cannot be further reduced can be
recognised.3 In turn analysing Rossi, Rafael Moneo
also argued for a double function of description
and design: Type is a diffuse concept that contains
a constructive solutionone that gives rise to a
space and is resolved in a given iconographybut
it also speaks of a capacity to grasp, protect, and
make sense of those contents that are implicit in
its use.4
Since Quatremre, and possibly even prior to him,
the meaning of type has continuously transformed.
The diversity of interpretations is apparent in contradictory uses ranging from normative, immutable
types derived from the past, to a positivist generation of new morphological forms or evolutionary
series of formal typologies. Although everyday practice remains reliant on the use of building types and
urban morphologies, type and typology are today
often discarded as conservative, static norms. Ironically, this is attributable to Neo-rationalisms last
coherent typological discourse in the 1960s.
Despite great efforts to revitalise typology and
expand its application to the city and morphology,
Neo-rationalism could neither successfully challenge
the Modern Movements conflation of type and
typology, nor overcome the reduction of typology
to a descriptive classification of functions. Repeated
attempts to shift a descriptive use to an analytical
frame, in order to make typology operative to
design, mostly failed. This explains the everyday
misuse of typology in the sense of genrean explanation through common function rather than organisational or structural formand a lack of distinction
between type and typology, between conceptual

and formal reasoning. As Micha Bandini observed,

by the late 1970s typology had simply become a
conventional explanation of received form.5 When
in 1985 a last desperate attempt to restore hope in
the discourse of type was made by Vittorio Gregotti
in The Grounds of Typology, he declared:
We must accept that throughout the seventies it
has been an improper use of the notion of type
which has proved, in good or bad, most productive.
I believe that today a serious debate on the notion
of building type and on its value (not ideological
but also as a concrete project tool) can only lead
to a thorough rediscussion.6
Disregarding a questionable if symptomatic synonymous use of type and building type, Gregotti was
too late to change the consensus by practitioners
and academics alike that typology had failed either
to deliver a viable synthesis of theory and practice,
or to develop an urban design method that could
supplant the Modern Movements planning doctrine. So architecture began to turn expectantly
towards the diagram, which promised at first a
formal invention liberated from the strictures of
typology, history, process and function. But, returning to Gregottis hope vested in a productive rediscussion of typology, I would claim that a contemporary discourse significantly differs from the Neorationalist debates by entering the discussion
through precisely this question of the diagram.
All architectural practices that rely on diagrams in
the derivation of form, can be considered equally to
rely on a typological analytic. To overcome the existing historiographical separation between a typological or diagrammatic discussion, one could use the
term typological diagram, meaning a diagram

933
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 20
Number 6

that is specific to the discipline of architecture in its

production of form and knowledge, and is framed
in both typal and typological terms. This typological
diagram is an abstraction arising from a set of
related conceptual, descriptive and design problems,
and first emerged in the eighteenth-century discourse on architectural history by Julien-David Le
Roy, whose work had a significant influence on Quatremre and his contemporary Jean-Nicolas-Louis
Durand. I develop these arguments further in
Typal and typological reasoning: a diagrammatic
practice of architecture.
Representative of the position taken by key proponents of the diagram, Jeffrey Kipnis believes that the
dynamic formalism of the diagram changes architecture from a cultural discourse and institutional critique to an internal disciplinary consideration.7 I
would counter that any typological discourse
shows that these are inseparable, that form is also
always defined by material, historical, environmental
and socio-cultural contexts. Typological as well as
diagrammatic production instrumentalises both
internal and external relationships, which are no
longer meaningful if architecture is solely explained
in terms of architectures autonomy. In addition,
Kipniss claim that the causality of the diagram is
objective while its effects are subjective, thereby
offering a simultaneity of generic and specific
form, is a familiar explanation of the architectural
diagram as mediating between generic and specific
descriptions (especially those related to form).
However, this is a fundamental typological
problem. One important purpose of the typological
diagram then is to define organically or to limit possible manifestations of an idea without restricting it to

a finite formal representation. The typological

diagram provides both a critical, conceptual framework and a practical, formal design approach.
The Symposium Type versus Typology was convened to re-discuss the relevance of type and typology to contemporary architectural practice and
research: it was organised by the Projective Cities
(MPhil in Architecture and Urban Design) programme on 7th February, 2014, at the Architectural
Association School of Architecture in London. Presentations in their order were: Typal and Typological
Reasoning by Sam Jacoby, Type and Ambition by
Lawrence Barth, The Diagrammatic Construction
of Type by Hyungmin Pai, Building Types and
How They Change over Time by Philip Steadman,
The Typological Burden by Tarsha Finney, The
Fourth Typology by Christopher Lee, and a
keynote lecture, Type, Iconography, Archaeology,
and Practice by Rafael Moneo. For this special
issue of The Journal of Architecture, some of these
presentations have been expanded and reworked.
Hyungmin Pais argument for a diagrammatic
construction of type is central to both the Symposium and this publication. As first discussed in
the book The Portfolio and the Diagram: Architecture, Discourse, and Modernity in America (2002),
he expands on his proposition that: In modern architecture, the diagram has become form, and form has
become a diagram.8 A typological tradition deriving
from a Beaux-Arts training and the functional
diagram arising from scientific management in the
United States converged in the modern diagram
in the first half of the twentieth century in architecture. Designing a plan for a building in the nineteenth-century Beaux-Arts tradition meant first

934
Type versus typology
Introduction
Sam Jacoby

developing a parti and analytique, which facilitate a

transposition of the esquisse into the specifics of a
designin the process adumbrating a typological
diagram of specific formal relations. The parti was
replaced by the modernist functionalist diagram
and its generalised relationships. If we define the
diagram as a kind of drawing that possesses instrumental relevance within a system of relations, the
Beaux-Arts plan was the diagram par excellence.9
It used a system of central axes to organise the
plan diagrammatically and to imagine a subject
moving through its spatial order. Although the functional diagram, when applied to architecture, no
longer represented a moving body or material, its
function was, like that of the parti, still to indicate
spatial boundaries and order. Now, however, it
employed dispersed references and a considered
programme. Thus, for Pai, type is less an outcome
of a tightly woven analogical system but a loose diagrammatic configuration.10
A diagrammatic set of relationships is also discussed in Christopher Lees Type and the developmental city: housing Singapore, which argues that
type, as a contextual phenomenon and disciplinary
tool, emerges in Singapore as still in a state of
becoming. The dominant types of housing tower
and slab block, and the idea of a developmental
city are contingent spatial, social, economic and political instruments deployed in parallel. Unlike European types, whose meanings derive from an
historical process, the dominant types of Singapore,
Lee posits, do not yet carry an historical burden and
still have an immediacy in reorganising spatial and
social relationships. This synthesis between effect
and political representation is exploited in a series

of public-housing prototypes, in which typological

and morphological transformations are evidence of
socio-political change: from the provision of emergency housing through 12-storey slab blocks in the
early 1960s under the Prime Minister, Lee Kuan
Yew, a provision intended to drive national modernisation, followed by the development of autonomous new towns until the 1970s through a
mixture of standardised towers and slab blocks, projected to house a growing middle class, to the construction of urban precincts in the 1980s.
Coinciding with a change in political leadership in
1990, Goh Chok Tong introduced finally a leisurisation and commercialisation of Singapore, which
changed the role of housing from an urban norm
to that of a spectacle and landmark.
Unlike Lee, Tarsha Finney in The object and strategy of the ground: architectural transformation in
New York City housing projects, examines how
the operativity of type emerges from an historical
typological burden, which she defines as a persisting disciplinary research investigation and a process
of formal proposition that precedes the establishing
of meaning. Yet both authors agree that typology
has a diagnostic and projective function (when
type is consciously selected), and that disciplinary
knowledge is directly effected by formal transformations occurring across multiple scales, which
mobilise architecture and the city, as well as the institutions and agencies involved in their government
and planning. Specifically, Finney suggests that
architectures limited capacity to realise change can
be partially overcome by considering disciplinary
experimentation in broader terms as always directed
towards urban transformation and the shaping of

935
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 20
Number 6

urban subjects. This positing of a discursive relationship between type and diagram is proposed in a
twofold manner: first, through a critical reading of
Kenneth Framptons article Twin Parks as Typology
(1973), and, second, through the typological experiments motivated by the problem of the ground as a
strategic instrument of urban development and
reform. These are discussed in relation to the specific
setting of New York City and the general context of
a disciplinary enquiry.
The importance of architectures spatial reasoning and transformation of the urban also dominates
the discussion of Cultural buildings genealogy of
originality: the individual, the unique and the singular by Pavlos Philippou. As does Finney, he proposes typology as a continuation of an existing
disciplinary enquiry, one that often occurs in a
serial development. This development is characterised by repetition, but moments of rupturethe
individual, unique or singularappear, which can
be understood, through Alan Colquhoun, as
moments when a displacement of concepts
takes place. Applying this comparative analysis to
the stereotypical cultural building of Bilbaos Guggenheim, an urban problematic common to cultural buildings emerges, which is concerned with
an urban iconography and scenography, and uses
a sequential articulation of the ground as a principal element of design and staging. According to
Philippou, the failure to question these urban conventions and its concurrent compensation by an
emphasis on material and formal virtuosity prevents
organisational experimentation and, as a consequence, realisation of new urban possibilities.

However, all urban possibilities derive from an

architectural differentiation and disciplinary transformation, as conveyed by other cases of cultural
buildings such as the Neue Nationalgalerie by
Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, the Museum of Art of
So Paulo by Lina Bo Bardi and the National
Theatre by Denys Lasdun.
To read the effects of architecture at the urban
scale, or the whole through its parts, is familiar
from Neo-rationalism. In the Essay Typology in the
context of three projects: San Sebastian, Lacua, Aranjuez, Rafael Moneo gives a personal account of
Rossis influence on urban theories in the 1960s,
Rossi being the figurehead of the Tendenzas
exploration of typology in the context of the city.
He analyses Rossis endeavour, in LArchitettura
della Citt (1966), to create a positive science
linking architecture to urban design and planning
practices, and how these first notions of typology
and urban science are consolidated in the XV Triennale di Milano of 1973 that, according to Rossi, was
a patient work which started from historic analysis,
extending to the city, topography and typology [ ]
as the basis for architecture.11 To Moneo, it was
only then that typology was understood as an effective concept for establishing a general theory of
architecture beyond simple historicism. Critical of
the radical images of the Tendenza, Moneo then
reviews how, in his projects for San Sebastian,
Lacua and Aranjuez, ideas of type are instead
adapted from well-known structures and developed
through the design process. All three projects
emphasise typological change as resulting from a
diagrammatic thinking through existing typological

936
Type versus typology
Introduction
Sam Jacoby

principles, in particular relationships between urban

block and housing arrangement organised by the
movements of inhabitants.
In a postscript, Moneo also reflects on how an arthistorical discussion of evolving type-forms,
especially George Kublers book The Shape of
Time, influenced a typological thinking by architects
in the 1960s. This art-historical framing, I believe,
was not unique to the mid-twentieth century, but
a continuation of the type discourse as introduced
from art history to architecture by Quatremre, and
also evident in subsequent studies of persisting artistic motives by Gottfried Semper.12
This Issue of The Journal of Architecture is supplemented by two book reviews. Pavlos Philippou
writes on Building Types and Built Forms (2014) by
Philip Steadman, who presented some of the
books rich graphical and historical analysis at the
Symposium. In his use of scientific and archaeological
methods, Steadmans research offers an interesting
continuation of, yet also a radical departure from, discussions of type as they were presented at the Symposium, and now in this special issue. In some ways
his research is reminiscent of the nineteenth-century
work by Durand or Semper, which explains formal
changes in buildings over time. The second
book review is of Jacques Lucans Composition,
Non-Composition: Architecture and Theory in the
Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries by Maria
S. Giudici. This book is motivated, despite obvious
differences, by a question also found in Pais book
on the diagram: How to understand nineteenthcentury conventions of designing (an architectural
plan) in the twentieth century? Lucan sees a linear

development framed by changing ideas of

composition, whereas Pai argues for a new spatial
representation and conceptualisation that arises
with the functional diagram.
The ambitions of any symposium and special issue
of a journal are productively to exchange ideas and
positions on a shared set of questions. This was
clearly the case in the three generous discussions
that took place during the Symposium. Some of
the questions discussed in these conversations
were: What are the different diagrammatic relations
framed by type in architecture? Can type be represented (what is the role of drawing)? How does
type or the diagram obtain disciplinary agency?
How does a diagrammatic idea of type challenge traditional limits set by notions of the collective, the
individual, autonomy or convention? How do social
and spatial diagrams relate and intersect? Although
I hope that this issue provides some clarifications,
perhaps more importantly, I also hope that it
encourages further discussions.

Notes and references

1. Type means: That by which something is symbolized
or figured; anything having a symbolical signification; a
symbol, emblem; spec. in Theol. a person, object, or
event of Old Testament history, prefiguring some
person or thing revealed in the new dispensation; correlative to antitype. in (the) type, in symbolic representation.: (Def. 1. a.) Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn
(Oxford, Oxford University Press,1989).
2. Carlo Giulio Argan, Sul concetto di tipologia architettonica, in, Karl Oettinger, Mohammed Rassem, eds,
Festsschrift fr Hans Sedlmayr (Munich, Beck, 1962),
pp. 96101; English translation, On the Typology of

937
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 20
Number 6

3.

4.

5.
6.

Architecture, by Joseph Rykwert in Architectural

Design, 33 (1963), pp. 564565; 565.
Aldo Rossi, Larchitettura della citt (Padua, Marsilio,
1966); English translation, The Architecture of the
City, by Diane Ghirardo, Joan Ockman, with an
introduction by Peter Eisenman, Oppositions Books
(Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press, 1982), p. 41.
Rafael Moneo, Aldo Rossi, in Theoretical Anxiety and
Design Strategies: In the Works of Eight Contemporary
Architects (Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press, 2005), p.
105.
Micha Bandini, Typology as a Form of Convention, AA
Files, 6 (1984), pp. 7382.
Vittorio Gregotti, The Grounds of Typology, Casabella, 509510 (1985), pp. 47; 4.

7. See Jeffrey Kipnis, Re-originating Diagrams, in Peter

Eisenman: Feints, Silvio Cassar, ed. (Milan, Skira,
2006), pp. 193201.
8. Hyungmin Pai, The Portfolio and the Diagram: Architecture, Discourse, and Modernity in America (Cambridge,
Mass., The MIT Press, 2002), p. 252.
9. Ibid., pp. 556.
10. Ibid., p. 253.
11. Aldo Rossi, Introduzione, in Architettura Razionale,
XV Triennale di Milano. Sezione Internazionale di
Architettura (Milan, Franco Angeli Editore, 1973),
p. 18; transl., Rafael Moneo.
12. Semper had a particular interest in the cultural and technological motivations leading to the production of an
artefact. I therefore use motive instead of motif.