63 Mioha Ban ‘Typological theories in architectural design (1993) Micha Bandini, Typologicl theoriea in architectural design, from: Ben Farmer anal Hentie Louw (ds), Companion to Contemporary drchteura! Thought, Lonvlon: Routledge, 1993, extracts pp. 387-393, “The word typology means the study of yp. Typology is concerned with those aspeets of human production which can be grouped because of som inherent characteristics which make them ‘similar The theory oftypolagy i thus cat of conceptualizing thane categorie The sue of types and ypology becomes of fundamental importance in arte production wwhenexer the ast is cononted with, on the one hand, the weight of histriel precedent snd, ‘on the other, artistic inventon Ifan artist i interested in contributing to the culture of human, artefcts he or she willaveto contont the problem of type, whuther choosing the avant gard [positon of rejecting history or accepting the continuation of tradition, Ie hecomes obvious, then, why typology is of eonteal intrest to architecture, sce archi ‘tecture cannot exist na raewum but wil alwaysbe found ina context which often pregnant with historical references. These are precedents which designers might want either to follow or to slisance themselves fom, but which, nevertheless, because of thee nature, contin the act of _rsative invention its eis of cultral significance that typology becomes relevant in architecture everytime the {following ta ies are simaltancousy present: when similar, but diferent, architectural objects are needed to house simi functions (for example, hanks, schools; when the sally of 2 ‘lominantstitic convention ying challenged, Thus typology assumed primary sgnficance at the en of the eighteenth century, wen the classical ration of architectural composition was confronts by the emerging ofan industilizing society twas agin in the Torfrcat ofthe Architectural dchatedoring he 1920s nd the 1930s, when the socalled Mvdern Moxement a8 ‘expected to provide am alternative aethotc For an wver-increasing number of building require ments, And typology once agin bec important in the late 1960s andthe early 1970s, when ‘umber of architects begas to question both the validity of the Modernist aesthetic and solutions “Tothis, two diffrent answers have been traditionally given The frst assigns to type an teal role that ofa mental construct which is not embodied in any specific form but which s adapted ad clorated by the designer, so tat invention can coexist with tation and the authority of precedents The second sees typeasa tool for the composition of schematic objects which might become real architecture ithe needs of socal and economic production require th particular conformation. ‘The Gest answer i sully atebuted to Quatremére le Quiney who, following the Neo Platonic tradition of eo-casllsn, defined type’ asana prior which an be further tensforme by the designer tof his imagination and the requirements of the rie (Quatremre de Quincy 1788-1825). The secon annver comes from J.N.L. Durand whe, following eontempnaty tors of taxonomy in the natural sciences, believed that the nature of a type i that of a lasifale Form, componed from primary architectural clements which, combined withthe laws of descriptive geometry can produce a modl tobe copied (Durand 1802), But while the conventions ofa tradition characterize these two postions as opposite, a closer reading of Quatre and iran shoes an absence ofthat igi schematization whic ha th nan fsture oftheir posthumous interpretation, "Thos when Quatremire makes the ditinetion between type and model he fs not only reafieming the predominance of the idea! exer the contingent, he flo indicating the nee to provide, through an inspiring mental censtract, 3 ‘workable indicator for practising architects Likes, J NL, Durand, sho declares the portance ‘fs "modl soot in history in oth the Pcs ds Layne (1802), where he ndete 3 geometical compositional procedure, and in dhe Recueil er poral sos fies ances e modes (1800) ‘where he traces ther historical lineage, Ths Durand’: concept justification of themed” reached through analysing the eration of the Formation ofcrtsin types and through sceeavely laherating on them with the ble, common tothe culture of hie ie, that the else language had been able to stain archtectore exer the previous centurcs then i would be within chat train of composition thatthe requirements ofthe nineteenth century were key tobe met. tage that the theory of typology came to represeat within the palemic of the Modern Movement bth the perfectly of the industrially produced mass object axl the Meal tmess pfs ‘Le Corbusier nis conception o's minimum unitin the compeniton of larger" Unite’ and rast ‘May, Alexander Klein nd the second CIAM congress (1929) in their search far minimum housing standard, ll sare ths tradition chich chose to keep open the ambiglty betseen type es fom this mixed he fom o certain forms. Muthesus in his advocsey fora bette industey, xd axe becouse of th workability ofthe later a the formal authority of the forme. Most contemporary evidence nov shows tht these architects, while taking part, theo tially in the vantgarit polemic against history, in thel practical work often electel to invent ‘on the bai of tradition which alloca the inking of contemporary creativity wthanavareness ‘ofthe form richness of the past, But the way i wich this manner of working was received ‘ofc and transite by erties an historians co others, la order to make it more palatable sid usefl rather dllrent, The Nesbilty, one could almost say the ambigulty, which wa built into cary’ Modernist theorlzations was not incorporated In those narrower recordings of arcitccture which aw type ony 3 non-specific concept, and model only a ery convenient ‘3 for appreprating precedents ‘TYPOLOGICAL THEORIES IN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN‘Thus type, inthe reductive exception it acquired through its post Second World War sul {stzation, came to be almost synonymous with evo trends of thought cithor with fonctions, ‘which was negatively equated with the Evstenzminnum research, or with the easifcation, and prs further prediction, of previous architectural examples. ‘Typological debates eeame very important in tly, perhaps because immeritly alter the Second ‘World War history became central to architectural debate. The reason For this not just tht the country needed to obliterate the representational ambigsities ofits immediate Fascist past by linking itsel to the rationality of Modern al to its Enlightenment rots, but also because younger designers, scarhing agin to ground architecture within specific cultrsl and geogrsphic settings, questioned the 'internaionality'] of the Movlera Moxement and its legitimacy a8 3 “model aid for al tires and in all contents. For awhile the debate between model an type seemed to lan on the Neo: Platonic iter protatian of type, espodlly because this wa the thas of an authortatie article by G.C. Argan ‘which has appeared in ferent versione since 1965 and which achiowed ie ulimate sate when itbecame the entry on'type" inthe Enciclopedia Univeral dell ee? Argon’ argument, in equating the role that typology serves in architecture with tht of iconalogy in art, not only fllowed the ar-critiiam hypothesis current a the time, but also made Iyposbetical suggestions to those allan architects who were searching fora rationale from which tooperste His three-tiered argument, usc frequently by those who support the idealist interpretation fon type, starts y seating: “Type is characteris a set of rules deduced through a procedure of reduction of 2 series of formal yviants from 3 bae-form oF from 3 commnanal scheme. If type isthe product of this repressive procedure, the found baseform cannat be understoud at 23 mere structural framework, but either 36 the internal framework af fare in is autonomous artistic value or asthe prineple which inludes in ialf not ony ll the formal confguratins from which i has been deduced but alo the posabilty of further ‘ariatons and e.onthe complete modification ofthe structore af the given type ‘Argan 1958:3) Argan then proceeds to demonstrate that type it an intel part of any artiste creation first by stating tha ‘typological series aro nat formed in history because of the practical function of buildings but because ef their configuration’, and second by making the hierarchy of architec: ‘ural scale the conceptal means by which sich formal configurations may be subisled into ‘stegorcs In order todo this he chose thre all-encompassing categories ‘the fst which includes tie configurations of buildings, che second [which comprehceds large building element, and ‘the third [which ie conesened with] docorative elements! (Argan 1958:4), ‘MCHA BANDINI ‘The attractiveness of Ags the argument builds up towards s process which closely resembles, in its internal loge, the one ‘which gives rise to rationally based design, It could be reasonably hypothesize then, that what tame to be understood by those European architects who were inclined towards this design approach, and they were the majority, as bass Fr atypologiesl debate was: article sds not only to its intrnse peal but also tothe way 1 that type isan tea and nota precise form, hich means thai an be eaborsted upon; 2 that this modifiable concep similar, in the internal logic ofits historical deployment, to the internal logic which the architect employs when creating the forms of his or her projects; 5 that through che analogical combination of the two (the type-keal-form andthe architect ideal form) the designer could approach the pressing problem of history; and nally 4 thatthe procedure thraugh which all of thi could be achieved would be to fallow a design process which would be careful to klentiy the appropratenes of different hierarchical scales ‘of composition both in appraising nd in designing bukings. “These ideas seemed especialy relevant, during the 1960s nd the 1970s, forthe Venice School of Investigation ofthe ‘ypologial structure of city aa prerequisite fora morphological intervention ito it Within this ‘cation of enquiry, begun by Giussppe Samond,? and furthered by Saverio Muratori, with a ‘ksi survey ofthe Venetian urban context (Muratort 1960), Alda Rossi chose typology asthe na topic of discussion forthe aelemic year af 1963-4 (Ross 1963-4). In ths way a ong series f conributons hogan through which his approach to typology developed and changed ‘While itis clear that Resi, fn this early phase, sa building typology asthe repository of ‘he permanent morphologies features ofthe city, the role he attributes to type in respect tothe toundaies of architecture is more ambiguous, Docs type possess socio anthropological conno Architecture where » number of influatisl teachers came to regard th tions, which the desler can acces through its analysis an elaboration, ori such 3 method oom to falure and ean architecture only be pursue within an autonomous position? Ross ontemporancous archtseture of silence’ seems to further the second hypothesis, especially ecawse itis pursued in conjunction with his concept of the city formed of parts formally conclodcl where nthe urban structure, building typologies provide the networking sue and ‘monuments the exceptions. Ross writes almost paraphrasing Argan “Type iethov constant and manifests tse with a character of necessity: but eventhough | itis predetermined, st reacts dialetesly with technique, function and style as well ax ‘vith both the collective character and the idsidua moment ofthe architectural artifact. (Rn 197641) {Rossini concept scems to draw on the eal aspect of type, particulary emphasizing the thiealeorrecnes of tology asthe appropriate’ politcal compositional device, he would ater lax intos more ll embracingattitce which would focus on those aspects ofthe relationship ‘etween urban morphology and building typology (3, for example, with'memory') which the ‘TYPOLOGICAL THEORIES IN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN282 designer could use in order to transform che usban context through bis or her oven erative sxnsibility But in those years of confusion, when general political sues became mised up with the intellectual ificltics which architects were encountering in understanding thar role in society, liberating themselves fom the Modern Movement stratjacket while simultaneously seeking to _give form’ to their projects, these kindof compositional approaches provided security. Thus a ‘politcal’ working dociment, drawn up during the academic year 1967-8 bya group of students tstored by Massimo Seok, characteried type 383 principe af architecture bas on Formal anal twenty yeare ter Scolari woul write in apprising this phenomsnon: Even the definition of ype as principle of architecture’ was only spparently a theoretical atement In Rost architectre this was, immedstely al from the very stort, not reducible mol; and it was s0 closet the dca that ft remained ambiguously Poised betscen simplicity and oversimpliltion, To the later belong all the replica nd ‘he variations progucia by the imitators, (Scolar 1985:45) While Rows pursued, trough the dal type, his own sof architecture, in the sme years Carlo Aymonino sw ypology more 3¢ part ofthat current of thought which drew onthe rationality of both the Enlightenment and the Modrn Mosemen. To him, building types ae architectural bbypothos, afl tal use because nocsssry’ This type becomes the rofernce pont of the ‘emerging trban siractire'; however, ‘the boundary between “ype and “model” sould often be ‘weak and the prototype will bter become the type to be confirmed inthe subsequent built ‘examples’ (Aymonino 1976:76-7). Particularly interesting in thie respect isthe excarutof the French followers of the typological school. Notwithstanding ther allegiance to J.N-L. Durand, Wittkower and Aymonin, sho had become the legitimiving authority for their eritings, to them the distinction drain between analysis and projec, 3 important for the politic) and cultral correctress of previous elaborations, became ol secondary importance. Instead they seek to drive the project Irom the sis ofits orban component (Panerai 1979:14), ‘Suchatttude is very event inthe work oF. Panera, a, for example, whin he writes: But i snot only ep to the project to enlarge the knowledge ofthe city, which would not be negligible, we mast interrogate ourslses om the asage of typology, and ask cursclter if such work could ata certain point, be of ang utility in the process of designing, First oll sypology is useless if anc does no hase any intention of making tue of it, Why waste time observing part of 3 city, anderstanding the constitutive mechanisms of itstisse, ifthe hypothesis rom which the design process rings i tht ‘ofa tabula ea operation or bulldozer operation, If one continues to belie that there ‘ucla BANDINI {sa time for analysis and another for the projet which will simply put logical form vo the" objective’ data given by the analy, thew onc understand that analysisand project are but two moments, to faces ofthe same theoretical reflection ofthe same respon sible attitude towards the city Urban analysis, and this the thesis here defended, {goes hand in band withthe ertesm of those interventions whieh ted wo dts the ty, o violate it, to anniilste it, Without such criticism urban analysis would be nothing but a sll (Pancrsi 1979: 14) Ternard Hu’: ellen an architecture which sces its mainly ss contributing tothe structure ‘of the city is atthe contre of most research pursued atthe Institut d'Etudes dle Recherches drchitetarales in Pais, There, series of studies was spatened on the txpo- morphologies rela tionship underlying the structure of French ets. Larchiteture urbane’ (a this sproach is balled) is cen 363 political tool to contrast speculative developments, and a teaching method is proposed asa way tanchor design toa cultural nd ideologies dimension. tisineresting to note that Hues response tothe problem of mas teaching sconditned by hisbelen the supremacy at typology er other theoretical tons This extends zlf vo che point that typology becomes the source ofall architectursl education, as when he writes: Al the practical problems given to the students to solve should be considered in terms of urban quootity an repetition of type rather than in cerms of the develop- rent of subjectivity based on the new and original, Compulsory typolegy must be 1 nccessary begining and not an end in itself for architecture consts in going heyond i (Huot 1978) The methodology of the French approach to typological questions ses to me particularly well sxcmplfed by Castex an Panera s study ofthe ty of Ves, where four analytical evels of investigation became the basis for reading the city This prescriptive framework, which in its orarchy srongly resembles Argan's interpretative categories, constitutes both the strength ant ‘weakness ofthese researches* Castex, Dep an Pancea soem to acknowl the inherent mibiguity oftheir approach, for example when they vite with respect to ene of their Iter research projects ‘Among diferent possible ways of reading the city, we do consider the city as an srchitectural artefact which canbe divided to distinct clement in order vo emphasise thiference, Such ferences, which refor to different levels of meaning, have to be interpreted inthe light of evidence external to architectre, in particular we are relceting tothe relationship betsssen spatial organization and social practic, his being for uso primary importance, fa order td so we willbe using the mation of mode! both from an architectural poin of wow and from a cultural one, .. From this stems phological study, but referred to example the apparent ambiguity of our works it isa ‘TYPOLOGICAL THEORIES IN| ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 253