theory

arq (2019), 23.2, 149–156. © Cambridge University Press 2019 theory   arq . vol 23 . no 2 . 2019 149
doi: 10.1017/S1359135519000198

Through a restructuring of traditional historical discourses on

architectural typology, a typological grammar is presented that
advocates a synthesis of typology with the design process.

The language of typology

Robert Grover, Stephen Emmitt, Alex Copping

The concept of typology has recurred in A precedent is a single instance or isolated example in
architectural discourse since the term’s conception contrast to a type, which is a non-physical entity, or a
in the early nineteenth century. To describe an typology, which refers to the means of categorising.
architectural object usually involves an act of Acknowledging that any given architectural
typifying; a generalisation of built form to common singularity has some common characteristics with
characteristics. Both the analysis of architecture and another and its situational nature makes it unique,
its creation require this abstraction, which offers identifying its type provides a way of connecting the
the potential to form types and expose initially particular to the universal.
unapparent relationships. Typology’s Type’s relationship to practice is complicated
Enlightenment origins sought to link architecture further by the ill-defined nature of the process of
to a natural order, but its terminology has design. Design methods, design methodology, and design
subsequently been adopted in modernist rejections thinking have all been used to describe the specific
of mass culture and Neo-Rationalist pursuits of processes that designers go through in the creation
continua and meaning. Despite widespread use of the of new artefacts. This evolving field encompasses
term, the role typology plays in the process of design diverse approaches such as deterministic processes,
remains unclear. Attempts to link its academic reflective practice, and heuristic methods. Of the
origins to the creation of architectural form multiple attempts to classify these cognitive
(notably by Gottfried Semper in the nineteenth processes, Designerly Ways of Knowing, introduced by
3
century, and Guilio Carlo Argan and Aldo Rossi in Nigel Cross, and its more recent incarnation as
the twentieth century) have done little to synthesise Design Thinking, bears remarkable similarities with
the two and merely succeeded in alienating it the paradoxical relationship between the particular
from practice. and the universal embodied by typology. Design
While theorists of type have debated its origins, Thinking, as described by Kees Dorst, utilises a mode
4
the use of the term in practice has often been of logical operation known as abduction. In contrast
reduced to naive functional approximations that to deduction and induction, abduction involves the
represent little in common other than a similarity generation of concrete reality from a set of general
of use. This oversimplification was legitimised in principles and specific values. It is this relationship
Nikolaus Pevsner’s A History of Building Types in which that lies at the core of both typological design and
buildings were categorised and arranged from ‘the design thinking. As this article will set out, type
most monumental to the least monumental, from formation is a necessary component of design
the most ideal to the most utilitarian, from national production.
1
monuments to factories’. Yet Pevsner exposes the Although the formal study of typology has only
challenge of this categorisation, firstly through the been apparent in architectural theory since the
5
almost unmanageable number of types a enlightenment, this notional historical genesis
comprehensive catalogue would need to contain, undermines the all-encompassing nature of
and secondly, the seemingly endless appearance of typological thought that has permeated architecture
novel functional requirements. since antiquity. The establishment of architecture as
Pevsner inadvertently raises the problem of an autonomous field in which architectural form
terminology and the ambiguity of type. Indeed, acquires specific definition necessitates type
typology and type are often used interchangeably yet formation, yet its use as a means of interpreting and
6
they represent distinct concepts. The former refers structuring the process of design has been limited.
to the system, the categorical structure or the means In part this may be due to a rejection of
2
of defining the field of the latter. The method of simultaneous typological concepts as well as the
categorisation may vary and that gives rise to embodiment of ideological stances that exclude
different typologies that may host a variety of types. multiple interpretive categorisation.

theory   arq . vol 23 . no 2 . 2019 149

150 arq . vol 23 . no 2 . 2019    theory

measured approach to design, a gradual refinement

‘Throughout the history of typology and adaptation of the type in response to cultural
conditions and technologies. Yet, his emphasis on
there has been a tension between its fundamental conditions as the foundation of
conception as a set of formal constructs typological thinking limits its value as a synthetic
and the type’s fundamental conditions tool. The categorisation of most architecture as
belonging to a small number of universal types is too
embodying meaning.’ broad to draw any kind of useful distinction that may
inform design.
While Quatremère separated the concept of model
Throughout the history of typology there has been and type, Gottfried Semper attempted to synthesise
a tension between its conception as a set of formal fundamental human experience with the physical
constructs and the type’s fundamental conditions world. Four elements (the hearth, the mound,
7
embodying meaning. This article argues that these enclosure, and the roof) common across antiquity,
definitions are not mutually exclusive but rather fulfilled physical and spiritual universal human
11
contribute to a richer understanding of type that needs. These indivisible urtypen, from which all
operates like language, governed by grammars that other forms evolved, were characterised by their
mediate the relationship between meaning and function and linked to processes as opposed to any
form. This has implications for designers; to satisfy particular form. The artistic object became a unique
the requirements of a user, a built work must transformation of these basic types through the act
embody values that align to aspirations and the of construction; the hut, for example, could be
selection of an appropriate type becomes essential to considered a response to an essential human need,
transfer desired meaning. but the process of its making, techniques, and
materials operate within a constantly changing
Typology and universal meaning social context.
The formal history of typology has typically If Quatremère’s version of type precedes physical
addressed the issue of universality, whether that is creation, Semper, through the concept of style,
through universal human condition, repeatable transforms the universality of type into specific
12
form, or shared experience. The earliest form. According to Semper, this process was guided
acknowledged writings directly addressing the by the ‘influences of climate, natural surroundings
13
notion of architectural typology are credited to and so on’, giving rise to various ‘developments of
8
Antoine-Chrysostome Quatremère de Quincy. Born the building instinct’, which he links to four pre-
out of Enlightenment philosophy, it coincided with Hellenic societies (Chinese, Egyptian, Assyrian, and
14
the efforts of classification in the natural sciences Phoenician). What Semper begins to describe is
hoping that categorising the past would reveal akin to an architectural grammar, a set of principles
principles that may be applied to design or, in the that governed the combination and manifestation of
9
case of biology, reveal theoretical new species. archetypal conditions.
Quatremère’s process was one of abstraction, a
rational deconstruction of architecture to notional
origins founded in the natural order. His typology ‘What Semper begins to describe is […] a
was intended to connect unique architectural manifestation of archetypal conditions.’
instances with their past and universality could form
the basis of any number of unique outcomes. It
offered a reductionist version of history Typology and design
reconstructing its path in rational terms. The challenge faced by protagonists of type is its
Important to recognise is the distinction that application to the design process in a coherent
Quatremère made between the abstract concept of manner. The Enlightenment quest for the natural
type as a theoretical idea and the model, which he saw origins of architecture limits its possibility as a tool
as form to be emulated. Type, thus stripped of for design. At a similar time to Quatremère, Jean-
meaning, was the underlying reason of the object Nicholas-Louis Durand constructed an empirical
derived from base anthropological conditions. typology of building axes, defined by diagrammatic
Through the use of available materials and abstractions of functional genres, and then furnished
dependent on the demands of construction, types with predefined components forming models for
emerged that were perpetuated and refined by emulation. Part 3 of his Précis on the Lectures of
tradition and gained authenticity through historical Architecture breaks down the city into its constituent
usage. Eventually they could transcend their parts: elements of the city (gates, streets, public
material origins, from timber into stone in classical squares, etc.); public buildings (temples, libraries,
architecture, for example. colleges, etc.); and private buildings (townhouses,
15
Quatremère lamented both the understanding of apartments, tenements, etc.). For each part he offers
type as an imitative model as well as the complete a brief discourse relating them back to classical
rejection of type; the former ‘repressing this art Antiquity as well as illustrations of model examples.
within the bonds of an imitative servility’ while the It was his intention to enable students to design
latter freeing it from any constraint to make it through modification of the idealised genre diagram
10
meaningless. He appears to be calling for a to meet more specific briefs. However, by defining

Grover, Emmitt & Copping   The language of typology

 theory   arq . vol 23 . no 2 . 2019 151

type through function, he isolated forms from their typology, implicitly placing design at its core.
archetypal meanings. Vidler draws from the work of the Neo-
Durand’s version of universality is one of model Rationalists, especially Aldo Rossi whose own
form. In his diagrammatic approach, rooms writings and works present a case for typological
supporting functions are mapped onto abstracted thinking. Like Quatremère, Rossi saw type as a
circulation structures. Durand assumed the city was principle prior to form, however he seeks not to
a static entity and accordingly does not account for uncover abstracted values, but those that have come
changing functional requirements. His work implies about through shared creation of the city. Rossi’s
a neutrality of form, yet it is the relationship types were empirically derived and focused on
between mass and space that embody archetypal reusing the urban form, which was seen as a
ideals underpinning our reading of the architecture. continuous morphology. Types emerged from built
This highlights the inherent problem associated structure as a product of social order rather than a
with the instrumentality of type. His diagrams direct result of primitive human conditions. He
struggle to escape the status of the model; they are considered type as being the very idea of architecture
indicative of form, failing to capture all the possible and that all theories of architecture were
20
spatial configurations. Whether deduced from typological. Any one type may manifest itself in any
function or abstracted spatial conditions, as soon as number of forms and all forms are reducible to type.
pen is put to paper, the type becomes a singularity, Rossi saw construction as the process through
undermining the multiplicity that the type which analysis could become concrete, elevating
embodies. If Quatremère presents an alienated type from a theoretical ideal. His built work
abstraction of type, Durand shows us an presents a tension between the general (type) and
instrumentalised yet limiting version of the concept. specific memory. He saw it as some kind of
21
Carlo Argan’s 1963 article ‘On the Typology of manifestation of fundamental being. In his early
Architecture’ marked the beginning of renewed career, Rossi’s application of type was both a
interest in the field and its relationship to the design conscious and scientific act initiated by deep
process. He sought to make a stage-based model of analysis of the city. The quest for objectivity led him
design (plan to structural system to surface to an architecture of primary forms and
treatment) analogous with, as he saw it, the three inextricably links type to the very determinism that
22
major classification systems of architecture Colquhoun is reacting to. Despite radically
(configuration, structure, and decorative different conceptions of typology, Rossi’s approach
16
elements). Argan’s rather mechanised and linear shares similarities with Gottfried Semper’s Doctrine
version of the design process nevertheless of Style, which suggested that fundamental types
recognises the interrelationship between were given form through the process of craft. It is in
typological thought and design creation. He the act of making, the application of available
believed that any project that had its demands technologies and materials, that type is given form
rooted in the past requires a critical development of and becomes an expression of base human
previous solutions embodied by its type. conditions. Rossi comes close to generating a more
Argan understood both the repetition and the complex vision. His work suggests a uniqueness of
ignorance of type to be unacceptable, however he type to cultural context and, by focusing on the
assumed the possibility of each. Six years later, Alan forms of the city as the lens through which to reveal
Colquhoun suggested architects could never be freed type, analytical study becomes a precursor to
from the forms of the past, thus to ignore typology is typological thought.
to lose control of the communicative power of
17
architecture. To Colquhoun, purely deterministic Design thinking
processes brought about by modernism and To limit typological thought to those protagonists
functionalism were inadequate and left a void in the that actively engaged with its terminology is to
design process, which ran the risk of being filled by undermine its pervasiveness in architectural
free expression, stripping architecture of its thinking. Design is a process of abstraction, whereby
meaning. potential reality is codified, manipulated and
This debasing of the modernist type was taken up restructured. Type utilisation may be a conscious
by Anthony Vidler in his article ‘The Third Typology’ action in which the designer selects a type
published in 1977, in which he articulates a appropriate to context and function that can convey
18
typological position that uses the city as its source. specific meaning, however, it may also be an
Unlike functionalism or theories of natural origins, unconscious act that arises in the creation of form.
he saw this typology as one founded in the autonomy Understanding the design process is key to
of urban form. This empirical typology had the realising the relationship between typological
capacity to embed ‘three levels of meaning’:
the first, inherited from the ascribed means of the past
existence of the forms; the second, derived from the
‘To limit typological thought to those
specific fragment and its boundaries, and often protagonists that actively engaged with its
crossing between previous types; the third, proposed by terminology is to undermine its
19
a recomposition of these fragments in a new context.
Vidler saw a need to reclaim a ‘critical role to public pervasiveness in architectural thinking.’
architecture’ through the vehicle of this new

The language of typology    Grover, Emmitt & Copping

152 arq . vol 23 . no 2 . 2019    theory

thought and design. In the 1970s, interest in design but also to provide shape to the underlying values
theory gave rise to numerous cognitive models and formal possibilities. In the conjecture/analysis
describing its cognitive processes, in part due to a model of design, the project frame provides a
desire to apply scientific methodologies to design. framework for both the conjecture of new proposals
Herbert Simon’s Science of the Artificial, written in and the assessment of trial solutions.
1969, outlined a problem-solving theory of design in It is in the act of framing that the designer
which designs were considered problems that were confronts the paradox of the universal and specific.
23
first analysed and then solutions proposed. In
Simon’s model, any complex problem could be
broken down into consistently smaller ones that ‘The relationship between the underlying
could be tackled individually. It relied on the
assumption that design arose as a response to a
values of a design situation and the
particular need and could therefore be considered principles that govern formal creation
problematic. represent the inherent typological
Simon’s analysis/synthesis approach became
untenable in the light of research into the problems reasoning of design.’
designers actually face. Very few design problems
involve straightforward analysis of an issue followed
by the creation of a solution. More often than not, Through restructuring the design situation, general
design problems have undefined desired outcomes, principles are made synonymous with specific
the processes to produce solutions are unclear, and it aspirational value in order to form concrete reality.
is not apparent when a successful solution has been Donald Schön’s description of framing, written in
achieved. Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber described the early 1980s, describes a dialogue between a critic
such problems as wicked, requiring a whole new kind and a student in which they enter into a frame
24
of thinking. discourse, in this case ‘the spaghetti bowl’ versus ‘the
34
Alternatives to the problem-solving model arose, Renaissance order’. These seemingly
which embraced the heuristic approach of actual straightforward metaphors are the mechanisms not
designers including Donald Schön’s reflective only through which the design is created but which
25 26
practice, the hermeneutic models of Bill Hillier, also allow it to be analysed. As Dorst notes, the frame
and the participatory approaches described by Nigel actually embodies a complex set of statements that
27
Cross. Of considerable influence on the field was enable the desired value to be achieved through a
the restructuring of the scientific method embarked series of generic principles.
upon by Karl Popper, in which he questioned The relationship between the underlying values of
prevailing inductive methodologies in favour of one a design situation and the principles that govern
28
based around the concept of falsification. His formal creation represent the inherent typological
theory of Critical Rationalism outlined a conjecture/ reasoning of design. In whatever way a project is
analysis approach to scientific discovery in which framed, the designer is engaged in a form of type
scientists made informed guesses that they then creation, the identification of a transferable
attempted to prove false. Popper’s theory was metaphor that captures the potential for the
29
adapted to design, notably by Jane Darke, and creation of meaning. By implication, types are
30
Michael Brawne. Problematic in the application of infinite, personal, and arbitrary. In Schön’s design
Popperian science to design is the lack of formal studio, it is difficult not to engage in a discussion on
frameworks for assessing the success of a conjectured frame validity; this is the very mechanism through
solution. While in classical science, one is able to which the design is critiqued. The typological
make observations to attempt to validate hypotheses, question is not whether the spaghetti bowl is in itself
in design this is often not possible. Moreover, when a type, but rather, how valid is this type? Making
faced with wicked problems, it may not even be clear frames and types synonymous underpins the
when this has been achieved. In order to tackle this, relevancy of typology in the process of space
the designer is required to engage in design thinking, a creation. It has the potential to engender conjecture
mode of cognitive processing outside of the and structure critique of the design process.
traditional deductive/inductive dichotomy.
The first discussion of design thinking could be Type and language
attributed to Nigel Cross’s 1982 article ‘Designerly In a given design situation, adopting a type is
Ways of Knowing’, which set out the case for treating analogous to using a language in which that
31
design as an autonomous academic discipline. At building speaks, governed by a set of structural
the heart of Cross’s design thinking is the ability of rules; a grammar. A spoken language is expressed in
the designer to transform abstract patterns into utterances, each individual and potentially unique
concrete ones through the use of internalised codes constructs. In the structuralism of Ferdinand de
or the adoption of a language. This can be described Saussure, these parts are termed langue (the set of
as framing, a concept that has its roots in the social rules and codes that constitute a language) and
32 35
sciences. Framing involves synthesising the parole (a unique utterance). Similarly, an
aspirational values of a project with the principles architectural type may be considered in these terms;
33
that govern its formal creation. The designer the canon of built work within a type forms parole,
constructs a project frame in order to reveal a solution defined by principles particular to the desired

Grover, Emmitt & Copping   The language of typology

 theory   arq . vol 23 . no 2 . 2019 153

meaning. In this structuralist typology, types are

defined by desired archetypal conditions, which are ‘A type consists of three principle parts:
made manifest through general principles of
building, supporting any number of unique its archetype (the particular human
constructs. Binding the two is the grammar of the condition which it embodies); its general
type, itself particular to a context and cultural
association. Recognising the appropriate framing of morphological principles; and its grammar
a design situation may connect the value of a project (set codes which define the relationship
to its appropriate formal possibilities given any
particular cultural condition. between the two).’
The analogy of architecture with language has
been widespread. Notably, the comparison is made
by Colquhoun who questions the assumption that in principles embedded in type is entirely dependent
art and architecture, parole emerges from free on context and is governed by grammar; the
36
expression of langue. This relationship is governed cultural force that binds the universal and the
by socially agreed aesthetic norms and principles unique. A type consists of three principle parts: its
that constitute a grammar. To Colquhoun, this archetype (the particular human condition that it
grammar is typological, emerging from either fixed embodies); its general morphological principles;
underlying forms (archetypes) or a fragmented and its grammar (set codes that define the
historical inheritance. It is a language of all relationship between the two). Morphology in this
architecture, representing its entire ability to case refers not to visual diagrams or models but
communicate. However, to refocus this analogy, rather the set of rules that define the creation of
realising the linguistic possibilities of type itself form and spatial relationships.
allows a richer reading of the concept. Rather than Rossi presents us with an application of a
type acting as a grammar, it becomes a language and typological language in his City Hall project for
through its expression makes possible the synthesis Trieste (the example is used by Vidler to demonstrate
of archetypal conditions with potential the communicative power of the type as well as its
37
morphologies. potentially transformative nature). In the project,
Unlike language, however, types themselves there is a clear reference to the eighteenth-century
embody value as well as potential form, both of prison as well as the arcade, which construct a
which generate meaning. Architectural form is never typological frame. This not only guides the
neutral and not only is any singularity a signifier of morphological principles of the scheme, but also
overt meaning but the constructed type connotes ascribes specific meaning to the project, in this case
value. Moreover, to understand type formation as civility through the reminder of the dialectic
frame creation leaves the possibility for new types to between the metaphors. The type is, of course, an
be constantly brought into being by the creative invention; the project neither belongs to a schema of
designer. The ever-shifting dialogue between specific prisons nor to what would be conventionally
value and universal principles necessitates that the recognised as a town hall. However, Rossi captures
designer invents a language with which to process archetypal values and links this to a morphological
any design situation. expression, which only makes sense given the
Both Quatremère and Semper discuss the grammar of the type, in this case the conventional
evolution of generic conditions to a specific cultural associations with the prison form. As Vidler notes:
form embodying meaning. Similarly, Rossi’s work The society that understands the reference to prison
generates a language through a reading of the city. will still have need of the reminder, while at the very
The desire for universality limits type creation, point that the image finally loses all meaning, the
whether from first principles or observed society will either have become entirely prison, or,
38
conditions. The potential of type as simultaneously perhaps, its opposite.
a universal and individual idea, constructed by the Rossi’s use of a typological frame to structure the
designer, is that it allows type to be shaped to project not only informs his decision-making
specific design situations. process, but also provides a framework for critique.
Conveying meaning comes not from a single However, to suggest that Rossi’s work is a pure
source but from the ability of a building to be both a scientific endeavour is untenable. His obsession with
sign and a signifier, simultaneously. The source of purist formalism, plainly stated in his Scientific
39
meaning in both cases, however, is inherently Autobiography, especially in his early works, led to a
related to cultural relevance. The association series of works that appear, as Alan Lipman asserts,
between archetypal condition and general ‘impassive, unyielding, forbidding; the spaces de
Chirico-like in their aloofness, in their silent
40
suppressions’. The obsession with objects leads the
‘The potential of type as simultaneously a work to be somewhat devoid of human agency,
universal and individual idea, constructed revealing a misunderstanding of a type grammar. In
the case of the Trieste project, the grammar
by the designer is that it allows type to be represents an oversimplification of social meaning
shaped to specific design situations.’ and the austerity of the project emerges through a
personal desire for architectural autonomy.

The language of typology    Grover, Emmitt & Copping

154 arq . vol 23 . no 2 . 2019    theory

Furthermore, one must ask if the prison and arcade morphological principles runs into issues, as often
is the appropriate metaphor to frame the social they require radically new ways of dwelling to
conditions of civility. facilitate inhabitation. Steadman argues that types
follow ‘morphological trajectories’, an evolution of
Type formation form to shifting usage patterns. This moderate shift
The historical focus on the discovery of types, either in design principles echoes the evolutionary
through rational or empirical means, is called into versions of architectural history advanced by
question when framing design as a mode of Semper and Quatremère and questions the
typological thinking. The implications of project necessity, or even possibility, of generating totally
frame and type synthesis suggest that types are new formal conditions.
almost infinitely numerous. Indeed, new languages Despite this, the advance in building technologies
may be artificially created or evolve from existing draws into question the principles of formal
languages. Given the tripartite relationship between creation that have governed spatial form. To deny
archetypal conditions, morphological principles, historical influence in favour of either pseudo-
and type grammar, three distinct possibilities arise. determinism or total free will undermines the
First, the definition of new modes of being, second grammar that ties meaning to form. The built work
the creation of novel formal relationships, and third compromises its ability to carry value, as there is no
the reassigning of meaning to form. shared link between the work and its purpose. As
The creation of new archetypal conditions requires Colquhoun notes,
the architect to define new ways of dwelling. In the It would seem that we ought to accept a value system
history of typology, those dealing with fundamental which takes account of the forms and the solutions of
human conditions have sought to reveal these either the past, if we are to retain control over concepts which
through rationalism (Quatremère de Quincy, for will obtrude themselves into the creative process,
44
example) or through empirical study (exemplified by whether we are aware of it or not.
Rossi). Quatremère’s attempt to deconstruct To create a new grammar of type is to re-establish the
architectural history generates artificial relationship between meaning and form. Yet despite
anthropological states that have seemingly little attempts to do so, architects are rarely able to escape
relevance to contemporary meaning. Rossi’s broader underlying cultural forces that tie the two together.
attempt to uncover meaning through looking at pre- Overt attempts in postmodernism succeeded only in
existing form provides a more grounded approach to subverting the denotive properties of architecture
archetypal selection yet is limited by the possibilities and inevitably failed to restructure the underlying
of the city as a source of cultural legitimacy. archetype/morphology relationship. Indeed, as a
Archetypal conditions cannot be created but conscious act this involved the recognition of the
represent some fundamental act of being embodied existence of the initial type to allow the possibility of
by built work and revealed by the designer. subversion. Conversely, the complete ignorance or
Arguably the prototypical architecture of rejection of a grammar undermines the possibilities
modernism, itself a reaction to the vagaries of to consciously control the communicative
popular culture, was an attempt to herald new ways possibilities of a work.
of inhabitation, deriving new archetypal conditions Making design itself an act of typological
from mechanised production. Modernism’s overt reasoning suggests that types themselves are specific
departure from historicism allowed the invention of and unique, yet these are bound by the conditions of
41
type as a social and ideological tool. The reduction human experience and the possibilities of building.
of the individual to the typical justified repetitive To frame a design situation typologically involves
formal units. In a further departure from precedent, the creation of a unique type, one that embodies
functionalism promoted a causal relationship aspired value, morphological principles linked by a
between use and form. As Argan asserts, contextual grammar. The creativity of the designer
industrialisation gave rise to new functional is to draw specific conditions from the vast array of
requirements that previous building types were ill- human experience, to recognise contextual
equipped to deal with and to the emergence of new possibilities and to realise appropriate principles of
42
types. The failing of the modernist ‘type’ is the construction. In this formulation of type, the
assumed link between type and function, which is historical preoccupation with its origins is rejected
undermined both by the reappropriation of in favour of a pluralist approach in which type may
buildings and the variance of form between embody a rich array of meaning. Once the need
buildings of a similar function. for the absolute universality of type is disregarded,
The creation of new formal relationships and a far wider pool of human experience may be
strategies appears at first to be a distinct possibility drawn from.
in the creation of type. However, as Philip Steadman
points out, the generic functions of building (the
need for shelter, ventilation, light, technology, etc.) ‘In this formulation of type, the historical
have necessitated a relatively limited number of preoccupation with its origins is rejected in
43
formal arrangements. His analysis recognises
favour of a pluralist approach in which type
consistent formal strategies in a variety of building
functions due to these universal demands. While may embody a rich array of meaning.’
theoretically possible, generating a novel series of

Grover, Emmitt & Copping   The language of typology

 theory   arq . vol 23 . no 2 . 2019 155

Implications for design of computational determinism mimics the

To consider typology as a ubiquitous mode of ahistorical approach of modernism. Through the
thought risks dissolving its autonomy as an rejection of types founded in tradition and precedent
architectural conceit. Yet, simultaneously, its power and a belief in the objectivity of the formal object, it
is enhanced as a method of analysing and creating risks opening the door for arbitrary form stripped of
architecture. To see a project frame as a typological meaning. While digitalisation may represent a
one allows the designer to assess the suitability of rewriting of the universal principles of building it
formal manifestations with regard to their must be connected, through a shared cultural
archetypal connotations. Moreover, it allows grammar, to archetypal modes of human existence.
association and reference from the canon of built Placing the user at the centre of the process becomes
work that shares similar typological characteristics. imperative.
It is conceivable that different types may share
similar or identical archetypal conditions or Conclusion
alternatively appear to have common morphologies, Understanding type as a language simultaneously
yet it is the relationship between the two that liberates the concept from its purely analytic origins
defines their uniqueness. The designer must adopt a yet protects it from the risk of model formation. To
language in which to communicate the value of effectively utilise it in the design process, the
their work. architect must frame aspirational values and generic
There is a latent typological force that informs principles as an overarching type. The key to this is to
prejudices and defines the genesis of architecture. It understand the grammar that governs the
is as relevant in design today as at any point in archetype/morphology relationship as a contextual
history, perhaps more so given the seemingly entity. It is the ability of the type to contain meaning
unbridled capacity of architectural technology. As through this unique union that allows its design
Colquhoun recognised, without acknowledging the potential to be realised.
transformation of the archetype, it is defined by
subconscious thought, impoverishing architectural
expression or risking misinterpretation. The
45
‘In an era of rapidly expanding architectural
widespread use of digital design as well as novel possibilities, type provides a mechanism to
building techniques mean the universal principles
that have traditionally mediated the expression of ground expression in architectural reality.’
architecture are being drawn into question. The rise

In the architectural design process, typology is not

only a tool but also a necessity. Accepting type, the
‘The rise of computational determinism
architect cannot arbitrarily assign or remove
mimics the ahistorical approach of meaning but must communicate their work through
modernism. Through the rejection of types the received conventions that tie morphology to
archetypal conditions. Typological reasoning
founded in tradition and precedent and a provides a means to construct framing metaphors
belief in the objectivity of the formal object, from typical human experiences and connect the
design process to a progressive chain of typological
it risks opening the door for arbitrary form
thought. In an era of rapidly expanding architectural
stripped of meaning.’ possibilities, type provides a mechanism to ground
expression in architectural reality.

Notes 6 Adrian Forty, Words and Buildings: University Press, 1988).

1 Nikolaus Pevsner, A History of A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture, 12 Gottfried Semper, Style in the
Building Types, Vol. 327 (London: Vol. 268 (London: Thames & Technical & Tectonic Arts, or, Practical
Thames and Hudson, 1976), p. 10. Hudson, 2000), p. 304. Aesthetics, ed. by Getty Research
2 Paul-Alan Johnson, The Theory of 7 Ibid. Institute for the History of
Architecture: Concepts Themes & 8 Antoine Quatremère de Quincy, Humanities and the Arts, trans. by
Practices (London: John Wiley & Dictionnaire historique d’architecture Harry Francis Mallgrave and
Sons, 1994). (Paris: le Clere, 1832). Michael Robinson (Los Angeles,
3 Nigel Cross, ‘Designerly Ways of 9 Philip Steadman, The Evolution of CA: Getty Institute, 2004).
Knowing’, Design Studies, 3 (1982), Designs, Biological Analogy in 13 Semper, The Four Elements, p. 110.
221–7. Architecture and the Applied Arts 14 Ibid., p. 113.
4
Kees Dorst, ‘The Core of “Design (Oxford: Routledge, 1979). 15 Jean Nicolas Louis Durand, Précis
Thinking” and Its Application’, 10 Quatremère de Quincy, des leçons d’architecture données à
Design Studies, 32 (2011), 521–32. Dictionnaire historique l’École Royale Polytechnique, Vol. 1
5 Sam Jacoby, The Reasoning of d’architecture, p. 256. (Paris: l’École Polytechnique,
Architecture: Type and the Problem of 11 Gottfried Semper, The Four 1809).
Historicity (Berlin: Technischen Elements of Architecture and Other 16 Giulio Carlo Argan, ‘On the
Universität Berlin, 2013). Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge Typology of Architecture’,

The language of typology    Grover, Emmitt & Copping

156 arq . vol 23 . no 2 . 2019    theory

Architectural Design, 12 (1963), 564–5. 28 Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Project: Types, Typical Objects
17 Alan Colquhoun, ‘Typology and Discovery (London: Hutchinson, and Typologies’, Architectural
Design Method’, Perspecta, 12 (1969), 1959). Design, 81 (2011), 24–31.
71–4. 29 Jane Darke, ‘The Primary 42 Argan, ‘On the Typology of
18 Anthony Vidler, ‘The Third Generator and the Design Process’, Architecture’.
Typology’, Oppositions, 7 (1977), 288– Design Studies, 1 (1979), 36–44. 43 Philip Steadman, Building Types
94. 30 Michael Brawne, Architectural and Built Forms (Kibworth
19 Ibid., 292. Thought: The Design Process and the Beauchamp: Troubador, 2014).
20 Aldo Rossi, Peter Eisenman, Diane Expectant Eye (Oxford: Architectural 44 Colquhoun, ‘Typology and
Ghirardo, Joan Ockman, The Press, 2003). Design Method’, p. 74.
Architecture of the City (Cambridge, 31 Cross, ‘Designerly Ways of 45 Ibid.
MA: MIT Press, 1982), p. 41. Knowing’.
21 Vincent Scully, ‘Postscript: Ideology 32 Erving Goffman, Frame Analysis: An Authors’ biographies
in Form’, in Aldo Rossi, A Scientific Essay on the Organization of Experience Robert Grover is an architect and
Autobiography (Cambridge, MA: MIT (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Teaching Fellow researching design
Press, 1981), pp. 111–16. University Press, 1974). process and pedagogy at the
22 Rafael Moneo and Gina Cariño, 33 Dorst, ‘The Core of “Design University of Bath, Department of
Theoretical Anxiety and Design Thinking”’. Architecture and Civil Engineering.
Strategies in the Work of Eight 34 Donald Schön, ‘Problems, Frames
Contemporary Architects (Cambridge, and Perspectives on Designing’, Professor Stephen Emmitt is
MA: MIT Press, 2004). Design Studies (1984), 132–6. Director of the Centre for Advanced
23 Herbert A. Simon, ‘The Science of 35 Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in Studies in Architecture at the
Design: Creating the Artificial’, in General Linguistics, ed. by Charles University of Bath, Department of
The Sciences of the Artificial Bally, Albert Sechehaye, Albert Architecture and Civil Engineering.
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1969), Reidlinger, Wade Baskin, rev. edn
pp. 111–38. (London: Owen, 1974). Dr Alex Copping is Senior Lecturer
24 Horst W. J. Rittel and Melvin M. 36 Alan Colquhoun, Essays in in Construction Project
Webber, ‘Dilemmas in a General Architectural Criticism: Modern Management at the University of
Theory of Planning’, Policy Sciences, 4 Architecture and Historical Change Bath, Department of Architecture
(1973), 155–69. (Cambridge, MA: London: MIT and Civil Engineering.
25 Donald Schön, The Design Studio Press, 1981).
(London: RIBA Publications, 1985). 37 Vidler, ‘The Third Typology’. Authors’ addresses
26 Bill Hillier, John Musgrove, Pat 38 Ibid., p. 293. Robert Grover
O’Sullivan, ‘Knowledge and Design’, 39 Rossi, A Scientific Autobiography. r.j.grover@bath.ac.uk
in Environmental Design Research and 40 Alan Lipman and Pawel Surma,
Practice, ed. by W. J. Mitchell ‘Aldo Rossi, Architect, Scientist – A Stephen Emmitt
(Oakland, CA: University of Storm of Silence … An Architecture s.emmitt@bath.ac.uk
California, 1972), pp. 1–14. of Alienation’, Design Studies, 7
27 Nigel Cross, Design Participation (1986), 58–66 (p. 58). Alex Copping
(Michigan: Academy Editions, 1972). 41 Marina Lathouri, ‘The City as a a.g.a.copping@bath.ac.uk

Grover, Emmitt & Copping   The language of typology