Building typology

Rationalization and modular systems: J.-N.-L. Durand

The systematization of functional typology began in the early 19th century, spearheaded by French architect and theorist] (1760–1834). Teaching at the École Polytechnique, Durand developed a pragmatic design methodology that prioritized social utility, standardization, and economy over classical aesthetics or symbolic imitation.^[4]

In his seminal works, Recueil et parallèle des édifices de tout genre, anciens et modernes (1801) and Précis des leçons d'architecture (1802), Durand defined architectural design through two primary principles:

• Convenience (Convenance): Requiring structures to be solid (achieved through intelligent material proportioning), healthy (site selection), and comfortable (precise geometric relationships tailored to the building's specific program).^[5]
• Economy (Économie): Achieved through simplicity, symmetry, and regular geometric configurations. Durand recommended circular plans over rectangular ones because their smaller perimeter minimizes construction costs.^[5]

To execute these principles, Durand introduced a modular square grid paper as a coordinating design tool. This system allowed architects to assemble standardized "elements of architecture" (such as walls, columns, and arcades) onto a coordinating grid, establishing a combinatorial design mechanism that was inductive in ordering space but deductive in its overall symmetrical composition.^[6][7]

Neo-rationalist critique: Argan and Rossi

During the mid-20th century, the Neo-Rationalist movement (*Tendenza*) reacted against the "naive functionalism" of modernist urban planning, which reduced the city to a series of zoning classifications and economic production cycles.^[8][3]

Pevsner's taxonomy of public buildings

Nikolaus Pevsner provided one of the most exhaustive historiographical catalogs of functional typology in A History of Building Types (1976). He traced the evolution of twenty specific public building types in Europe and North America, focusing on the 19th century as the critical period of functional diversification driven by industrialization and civic expansion.^[12] Excluding churches and private dwellings for practical reasons, Pevsner's taxonomy covers monumental structures—such as national monuments, parliaments, ministries, town halls, theatres, libraries, and museums—as well as more utilitarian or administrative facilities, including hospitals, prisons, hotels, exchanges, warehouses, railway stations, market halls, department stores, and factories.

Contemporary adaptability: flexibility vs. polyvalence

Modern design frequently addresses the contradiction between establishing a fixed functional typology and accommodating future change. Theoretical discourse distinguishes between two approaches:

• Multi-functionality (Flexibility): Relies on modifying physical spatial properties (e.g., sliding partitions, convertible furniture, modular building systems) to satisfy anticipated programs designed by the architect.^[13][14]
• Polyvalence: Introduced by Dutch architect Herman Hertzberger (notably in his Diagoon houses, 1967–1971), polyvalence describes a permanent, high-quality form that can accommodate different uses and spatial interpretations without physical or structural modification. In residential design, polyvalence depends on topological spatial connectivity; rooms connected in "star" or "circle" configurations (multi-route accessibility) offer superior interchangeability of daily activities compared to restrictive "chain" or linear layouts.^[15][16]

History

Autonomous building types arose partly from the general Enlightenment predilection for categorization, a prelude to scientific discovery. At first types were intended as ideal models, which could be variously copied. In this sense types were commonly used forms (a basilica, for example), adapted over time in new buildings with quite different uses: from Roman fora to early church forms (St. Peter's Basilica), to 19th century train stations.^[17] The fact that these forms are very similar and are derived from each other is an important way of understanding typology: types are evolved over time and therefore can convey a sense of history or cultural continuity. The idea of building types as formal configurations was enhanced by J.N.L. Durand, who developed two important works: the Parallele (1799), a huge, handsome book that reproduced plans, elevations and sections of historic buildings at the same scale.^[18] He categorized them by formal types, so that their basic similarities could be recognized. Durand followed up with a second book^[19] that manipulated and reconfigured the classical elements of architecture—columns, walls, etc.—to adapt them to new, emerging uses.^[20] Durand's system, a language of architecture, demonstrated one essential characteristic of types: a way of designing that was neither entirely free of constraint nor overly prescribed.

Documenting a Formal Building Type

Documenting a formal building type is similar to any typological^[21] process insofar as the aim is to identify the minimum number of characteristics which make that type distinct. In a formal typology, building types are usually distinguished by their basic shape, site placement, and scale, but not by their specific architectural style, technology, chronology, geographical location or use.^[22] For example, a cursory formal analysis of the townhouse will identify the following "minimum essential formal characteristics." In contrast with single family homes that share no walls with adjacent buildings, the townhouse, or rowhouse, shares both party walls (save the corner lot) with its neighbors. While many variations of this formal type are found around the world, each the product of their local environment (color, material, height, fenestration, etc), they nonetheless share the qualities that individual units are placed side-by-side, between two and five stories, with narrow fronts on deep lots, accessed via separate entrances that are setback minimally from the street.^[23][24]

This procedure can be applied to most buildings. For example, several residential types exist in the US, such as garden apartments, townhouses, and high-rise housing. Each of these may have many subtypes. The brownstones in Harlem are different from the rowhouses in Brooklyn. And the large mansions commonly found on corner lots in many cities are distinct from the smaller houses that were built later in between them, even though both are types of "single family home." Anyone can identify types simply by observing the common buildings in a place. Architectural and urban designers document types more thoroughly by measuring them, dating them, noting similar changes to the type that arise over time, and identifying their recurring locations in the city.

Application to History

Historians, anthropologists, and architectural historians use the documentation of type as a key to other characteristics in a city, for example, events, political control, or economic changes. As theory tells us, when a type evolves over some time, this is an indication that conditions in the city have changed.^[25] Anne Moudon documents changes in the types of an Alamo Square^[25] neighborhood to tell a kind architectural, cultural and economic history. She also identifies the block, lot and street pattern as key to typological continuity. Multiple studies using this method have identified important building types, for example Chinese shophouses, Shanghai's Shikumen housing, terrace housing in Great Britain, Courtyard buildings in France, and the atrium houses found in many hot climates. Atrium types are also important for mosques, shopping malls, and some hotels.

Application to Building Design

Building types are critical to architects because they are a starting point for designing. One need not reinvent the form if a common building type, say an office building, is wanted. Most architects develop a sense of common building types over time, even without acknowledging their importance. Architects know the approximate dimensions, bulk, site placement, and internal circulation that dictates most types. This allows them to work quickly to determine the parts of the design problem which are unique: material, orientation, structure, specific dimensions, entrance, and so on.^[24] One school of thought in Italy, started by Saverio Muratori, recognizes the importance of typology in providing continuity in the city.^[23] These architects have been influential in recognizing the role of type for modern architecture, where the newest buildings are encouraged to actively assimilate many typological characteristics, without imitating historical styles.

"A Pattern Language"

A unique example of formal typological classification is A Pattern Language developed by Christopher Alexander. While Alexander does not focus on classifying complete buildings by type, he instead breaks down buildings into their components and then classifies those components by their essential qualities, which he calls "patterns." [More explanation needed.]

Application to Urban Design

Common types are the building blocks of the city. Usually, a neighborhood streets and lots are laid out so that the common type can be built there. This occurs today in suburban subdivisions, but it has been a pattern in history, as well. This combination of types, streets and lots is called an urban tissue,^[23] or a plan unit.^[26] When studying a city, a designer identifies the common tissue patterns in place and may decide to link to them, imitate them, or otherwise recognize them as an historical artifact. A movement of urban theorists and practitioners in the US, New Urbanism, has identified building typology as a key to defining more user-friendly places. In trying to preserve neighborhoods or building new ones, building types once again become the building blocks of the city, and may be codified in law as form-based codes.