Thoughts on Building Conservation

Abstract:

The aim of the article is to understand Conservation as intent and as practice. Different terms associated with the process have been spelled out and defined for clearer understanding of the related issues, to develop one’s theoretical position and to question the intent of the people involved, namely, the owners, the care-takers and the professionals. The opinions expressed may be seen as conflicting but debate is centered on doing what is theoretically right.

Architecture is the art and science of designing buildings and other physical structures.

Architecture is both the process and product of planning, designing and constructing space that reflects functional, social, and aesthetic considerations. A wider definition may comprise all design activity from the macro-level (urban design, landscape architecture) to the micro-level (construction details and furniture).

John Ruskin, in his book Seven Lamps of Architecture, says, while referring to architecture “We may live without her, worship without her, but we cannot remember without her”, thus establishing a connection between architecture and memories. Spaces are inextricably woven with our memories.

Building conservation talks about conserving the architecture in turn to conserve the memories attached to it. Conservation as a term has an extremely broad meaning which encompasses anything that helps to ensure the survival of something of value. Where historic buildings and artifacts are concerned, conservation starts with simple maintenance and repair work but the term also includes alterations and other proactive measures which are required to ensure the survival of a part or a whole.

From the moment a building is first constructed, its deterioration starts: the forces of nature and of general wear and tear erode its surfaces and fabric, and intermediate alterations carried out over the years gradually replace original components, altering its character and sometimes compromising its structure. Where the building in question is of historic interest, or is simply old and beautiful, its deterioration can be tragic for everyone who loves the building, and its loss may impair the beauty of its surroundings. Conservation is the process designed to halt this decline.

I am an architect and happen to love old buildings. I still cherish memories associated with my grandparents’ house which was at least hundred years old before it was abandoned because it was deemed ‘unfit’ for further use. It had lived its life to the fullest and now it was time to say goodbye. The honourable thing was to let it go. Why should we restore an old building which can no longer be used and is dead? Why should we put it on life support or mummify by assigning it some passive function of a museum. Isn’t it already a relic? It is better to tear it down and do something constructive out of its debris rather than change its character by plastic surgery. Furthermore, how do we decide which building should be conserved? Taking the case of an old palace in ruins, which once must have served as a residence for a king, even after restoration and conservation will never be reused for the purpose it was designed for. Why should it be frozen in some time frame and for what?

A building which has stood the test of time and is still in use has proved itself as timeless. It has braved through ages owing to continuous care and use, adaptive or otherwise. It should become the responsibility of the users and people in charge to take care of it. Such a structure, in the true sense earns the right to be conserved.

“The principal of modern times is to neglect the buildings first and restore them afterwards. Take proper care of your monuments and you will not need to restore them.” - Ruskin

It is imperative to understand what it is that is to be salvaged. It’s the character of the building which needs to be saved. A human analogy can be appropriately considered with respect to buildings. Every person has a character, which is meant to be stable and fixed, something one ‘settles into’, and any alteration (unless it is the redemption of bad character in case of literature) is seen as unfortunate. The same can be said for buildings. Every building has a character which is historically constructed and has its own history. This character is inbuilt – not applied. Character can be destroyed by remarkably small differences in detail. Serious damage can be caused by simple things like pointing a stone or brick wall with a modern mortar, or coating the exterior surface of a solid wall with a waterproof material.

A distinction needs to be made between conservation, preservation and restoration which are often erroneously used to mean the same thing. The term 'preservation' is generally used to distinguish a particular type of conservation work sometimes referred to as ‘conservation as found’, in which the fabric is preserved in the state in which it was at the start of the project.

Restoration is another term used erroneously to mean conservation. Here the issues are more complex, since some restoration work may involve stripping away historic alterations to reveal earlier fabric, and in most restoration work new material is introduced to match missing components. In this respect the aim of restoration is clearly different from that of conservation, and some restoration work may actually damage the historic character of the building. Nevertheless, most conservation work involves some element of restoration, particularly where essential repairs are carried out to match the original form of a decayed component, where the aim is primarily to conserve fabric. But, replacing an old components or erecting walls on exposed foundations do not serve the purpose. What finally stands as the end product in form of the new structure is a bad imitating the original. Of what consequence is this new structure, erected on the grave of the original, imitating the original is debatable. How can one copy a surface which is worn down by half an inch?

It is through Ruskin that we first realize the necessity to make a crisp distinction between 'restoration' and 'repair', and it is a distinction of fundamental importance. Ruskin felt that “…restoration means the most total destruction which a building can suffer: a destruction out of which no remnants can be gathered: a destruction accompanied with false description of the thing destroyed”. He goes on to say; “It is impossible, as impossible as to raise the dead, to restore anything that has ever been great or beautiful in architecture” where he compares a living being to a building. In context to the tearing down of St. Owen abbey in France he commented “The principal of modern times is to neglect the buildings first and restore them afterwards. Take proper care of your monuments and you will not need to restore them.”

The policy of ‘minimum intervention’ lies at the heart of conservation philosophy today. Minimal intervention argues that as much of the original fabric of a building as possible is saved. These will be the elements which carry the marks of age, not merely the marks of the tooling, but of the weathering, decay, and consequent repair of the fabric.

Jonathan Taylor describes what he calls ten ways to ruin an old building. They are as follows:

1. Employ consultants and contractors who do not specialize in historic building work

2. Do not carry out any essential maintenance work

3. Use cement in place of lime for mortars

4. Paint or coat surfaces which were originally left natural

5. Extend or alter the accommodation in a manner which conflicts with its style

6. Introduce mix-and-match ‘period style’ detail

7. Replace original components unnecessarily

8. Position modern services and equipment intrusively

9. Use cleaning methods which damage original surfaces

10. Overload an existing structure

Taken out of context, this long list of don'ts would no doubt cement many people’s view that conservation is all about freezing buildings and places in a perpetual time warp at the expense of any function. Although conservation does not mean freezing a building in its present state for perpetuity, it does mean that all alterations must be carefully justified beforehand, taking into account not only the affect of the works in the short term but also their consequences for the building, its character, historic interest and its functionality in the future.

In sum, conservation philosophy can be seen either positively or negatively. It can generate much discussion, or it can reinvigorate and inform our decision taking about the care and repair of historic buildings. There are strong arguments for acknowledging that dealing with buildings of the Modern Movement needs a different approach, which is beyond the scope of this article.

References

1. The Seven Lamps Of Architecture – By John Ruskin

2. The Anatomy of Theory – an essay by James Simpson, the author of British Guide to the principles of conservation of historical buildings BS7913:1988

3. Jonathan Taylor, editor of The Building Conservation Directory

4. A Question of Ethics – The Conservation and Repair of Ecclesiastical Buildings, 1995, an essay by Peter Burman, Director, Centre for Conservation Studies, loAAS, University of York.

5. Synopsis – Conservation Theories at the end of Nineteenth Century, Architectural Institute of Japan

6. www.buildingconservation.com

7. www.wikipedia.com

About Author:

Neeti Gupta is a student of architecture, currently pursuing Masters in Architectural Theory and Design at CEPT University, Ahmedabad.

Typo-morphological Approach to Transforming an Urban Fabric

INTRODUCTION
In the past ten years, cities have grown at an unprecedented rate. This fast rate of growth has a considerable effect on the physical aspects of the city. Expansions have taken place in both directions horizontal as well as vertical. The whole energy of building industry has focused on individual units, where each building looks different from the other with an obvious desire to dominate each other. This has overshadowed the other aspects of city building.

Cities have transformed over ages since time immemorial. Most of the cities were transformed without an intention of doing so; they simply transformed by defining and redefining the relationships as per the needs of the society. There was a belief in the innate process of development or transformation of cities-incremental growth and evolutionary process. Owing to technological advances, city expansions and transformations are happening instantly. This has left no scope for interpretation of relationships by users; rather users are given transformed spaces to adapt themselves to. This has induced a gap of procedural evolution between what existed and what is existing.

Considering the old cities and the city extensions, the morphology has transformed to an extent that one finds it difficult to recognize a certain city from its form, street character or urban spaces. Within a certain city the walled area lends a unique, coherent and a united character; whereas all the new developments are similar and are fragmented. It lacks a sense of oneness or unity of urban form. The fabric fails to create a whole, a singular entity. The relationship between the Urban Form and the Urban Space constitute the essence of the city. Any modulation in the relationship is reflected and felt in the form and space.

CONCERNING ISSUES

1) The surface and the inside:
The mutation of urban space purely due to aesthetic reasons and for making the new city as a reminiscent of the old has ripped the meaning of the old form from the character. The development guidelines proposed by authorities provide stipulated morphologies that are unintended. The guidelines either enforce copy work from the old city to create the essence of the city or try create functional units in space. The language that the building talks inside is hardly representative of what is seen on the skin. This juxtaposition between the surface layer and the inside layer has become critical.

2) Estrangement between the public and the private realm:
While discussing public and private realms we also need to acknowledge two situations of such a happening.
a) Domestic; b) Commercial

Under both the circumstances the idea of "Free standing units" has been common. "Freestanding units" refers to a structure that has open space around its entire perimeter. The term is not limited to homes but also includes shops offices and apartment buildings. A typical attribute to the free standing units is the stark line rather than a gradual shift from the public domain to the private domain. In case of the old cities this gradation between a public space to a private one is soft and the relationship is defined. It not only exists in the domestic sections but also in commercial areas. In the architectural expressions in the new commercial or the residential sectors, there is lack of such graded spaces. The built form is hardly responsive of the urban space it is a part of; and hence free standing units.

3)Frozen entities and process in development:
The communicative merit lies in the unconscious thinking among the designers and the people. Unconscious thinking was oriented to common good rather than individual benefit. Today we see a wide difference in what the people think and what the designer and/or builders do. The development today is seen as a one-time act in which a selected expert population is involved- planners, politicians, engineers, architects, designers, builders etc.. This selected group of people have interest in the first step of development but renewals, redevelopment are never under their purview. Development is not seen as a process, the guidelines or policies are not redefined to suit the common needs. They have become prescriptive and do not allow for change.

There has been a change in relationship between urban form and urban space from the old cities to the new developments. In the new developments the typologies have lost the intimate relation that the built had with the un-built that lend the city its character. Not only have these relationships changed but the pressing needs of society have lead to the formation of new typologies. One needs to realize the evolution of new typologies (built as well as open) as a part of the process of development and strengthen the relationships.

AN INQUIRY

Type, Model and Genre
Quatremere de Quincy, at the end of the eighteenth century, brought forth a new understanding of 'type', until then regarded as a 'model', and based it on history, nature, and use. Quincy in Encyclopédie Méthodique (1825) proposed type is 'the idea of an element which ought to serve as a rule for the model.' He understood type expressed the permanence, in the single and unique object, of features which connected it with the past, acting as a perpetual recognition of a primitive but renewed identification of condition of the object. He considered type to be tied to history, changing continuously in relation to the urban context and that society in which planning, design, building and use are performed.

Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand, however, elaborated the understanding of the 'type', substituting it by the term 'genre' and deviating from the stylistic categorization, to developing a principle-led categorization. He used the term 'genre' to refer to all the buildings with distinctly different functions, either public or private. His idea of architecture was based on convenience and economy. He considered that an architectural object is a composition of elements to form a building. He considered elements which have taken form and proportion through their relation with material and use. In his understandings there was no understanding of type with respect to time or change.

Typological approach
Typologists understand urban spaces as separate entities and units. They typify urban spaces with respect to attributes like form shape, size, number of entrances, edge conditions etc. Krier states that all types of spaces between buildings in towns are urban space (space between buildings), and that 'this space is geometrically bounded by a variety of elevations'. This concept of (urban) space is extremely simplistic. A typology is understood in isolation void of any relations.

Morphological approach
Morphologists are interested in generative structure of space. But the study is a-historical. Understand urban morphology taking urban form and space as a static feature. The concern remains in social-geometrical socio-economical aspects of space structuring; also focusing on transportation and movement.

Typo-morphological approach
Typo-morphological studies reveal the physical and spatial structure of cities. Typo-morphology is a conceptualization of the relationship between physical and social aspect of space. They are typological and morphological because they describe urban form (morphology) based on detailed classifications of buildings and open spaces by type (typology).Typo-morphology is the study of urban form derived from studies of typical spaces and structures.' (Moudon 1994)Typo-Morphological' studies are 'object-oriented' with both the built and their related urban space, essentially treated as 'objects', and interconnected units. Emphasis is thus not so much into the study of individual building types or in the categorization of urban spaces in isolation, but in the study of the relationship between building types and their related urban open space. Buildings and their related open spaces are seen complimentary interconnecting units of space that are made and manipulated by their owners or users. Together they constitute the 'urban fabric.
Typo-morphological approach is sensitive to the engraved historicity in the urban form as well it understands the needs and aspirations of the city. Typo-morphologists are interested in typologies of relationships between built form and urban space. A non static attitude to urban fabric is central to this idea hence at times also called as typo- morphogenesis. Ground analysis and explanation in history and evolution of material space are the prime aspects.

This approach takes into consideration 3 aspects

• Relation between building types and related urban spaces
  
• Sensitivity to history
  
• And an outlook that a city is not static at any given point.
  

BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN THE OLD AND THE NEW

Taking the fact that a city is not a static entity it becomes important that one needs to find trust in the evolutionary process of city growth and development.

Argan's two 'moments' in the design process become quite relevant here:

1. the typological moment, when the rules of design and building used in the past are identified and understood, and
   
2. the moment of invention, when the artist answers the historical and cultural questions through a critical approach (Moudon 1994; Argan 1996).
   

The answer lies in searching and separating the Essential from the Non-Essential

"In necessariias unitas; in necessariia libertas; in utrisque charitas"
American variation of an ancient Latin aphorism
"In essentials unity, in non essentials liberty; in both charity"

Edmund N Bacon in Design of Cities

Finding and strengthening the essentials of the city gives unity, and leaving the non essentials to evolve on own gives city its character. Extreme discipline or extreme freedom results either in static or chaotic system. The attempt is to separate the essentials from the non essentials. The essentials give unity to the whole and the non essentials give liberty or flexibility and induces complexity.

The process should be catalytic not enforced. The important point is that the catalyst is not a single end product but an element that impels and guides subsequent development. It is capable of moulding a city in any of several ways, none of them dictated by a single-minded vision. Its purpose is the incremental, continuous regeneration of the urban fabric.

The question arises, we as architects, urban designers and planners how do we now contribute ourselves to the city building? We are not the facilitators or the decision-makers now. What are we to design in a city?

It now becomes our work to find the essentials and through the catalytic methods strengthen it and entrust the people what they are capable of and guide the development rather than enforce it.

The author is pursuing Masters Degree in Urban Design at CEPT University and the above post is the theoretical background to the thesis in process guided by Prof. PVK Rameshwar.

Bibliography

1. Books
   

• Broadbent, Geoffrey. Emerging Concepts in Urban Space Design, E & FN Spon Publishers, 1990. (Chapters on Aldo Rossi, Aymonino and Krier Brothers)
  
• Larice, Michael and McDonald Elizabeth. The Urban Design Reader. Part 4 (Koolhas Rem, The Generic City) ,Part 5 (Moudon,A.V., Getting to Know the Built Landscape), Taylor & Francis Group, London, 2007.
  
• Krier, Rob.. Urban Space (Typological and Morphological Elements of the Concept of Urban Space)
  
• Lang Jon. Urban design: a typology of procedures and products, Elsevier, 2005.
  
• Trancik, Roger. Finding Lost Space: Theories of Urban Design, John Wiley and Sons, 1986.
  
• Rossi, Aldo. The Architecture of the City. MIT Press, 1984
  
• Petruccioli, A. (ed.) Typological process and design theory Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture, Harvard and MIT
  

1. Thesis:
   
   1. Patel, Kush. Sir Stuart Hogg Market and Surrounds, Calcutta- A typo-morphogenitic approach towards strengthening its identity as a civic node, School of Architecture, CEPT University, 2005.
      
   2. Nanda, Vivek. Urban Morphology and the Concept of Type, School of Architecture, CEPT University, 1989.
      
   3. Caliskan Olgu. Pattern Formation in Urban Design: Typo-morphology as a Design based Planning Approach, Turkish Higher Education Council,2011.
      
2. Un-published papers:
   
   1. Cortes Camila Pinzon. Morphologies of Fragmentation and Continuity, Faculty of Architecture-Urbanism-Urban Design, TU Delft, Netherlands,2004
      
   2. Poerbo, Heru Wibowo. Urban Design Guidelines as Design Control Instrument, 2001. pg 64- 70.
      
   3. A. Takács, L. Kamondi Synthesis of the intuitive and the discursive designer
      Schools, Srni - Czech Republic,
      7– 8 November 2005.
      
   4. Koster E.A. Urban morphology- A taste of a form-oriented approach to the history of urban development, June 2001
      
   5. Chen Fei. Typomorphology and the crisis of Chinese cities,
      Department of Architecture, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
      
   6. Hanson Julienne. Morphology and Design, University College London, UK.
      
   7. Kropf Karl. Typological Zoning
      
3. Articles:
   
   1. Vilder, Anthony. The Idea of type: The Transformation of the Academic Ideal, Oppositions Reader.
      
   2. Vilder, Anthony. Type,
      Oppositions Reader.
      
   3. Gulgonen Ahmet. A Typo- morphological Approach to Design Thinking, http://www.archnet.org/library/pubdownloader/pdf/3781/doc/DPC0437.pdf.
      
   4. After Typology: The Suffering of Diagrams, Architectural Design Journal, Vol. 70, No. 3, May-June 2000.
      
   5. Lehtovuori, Panu. Experience and Conflict. Centre for Urban and Regional Studies Publications, 2005.
      
   6. Margaret B. Sevcenko. Theories and Principles of Design in the Architecture of Islamic Societies Harvard University & MIT Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture, 1988. (Ahmet Gulgonen. Chapter 11- Typo morphological Approach to Design Thinking).
      
   7. Claessens François. Mapping urban and social space: towards a socio-cultural understanding of the built environment, Faculty of Architecture Delft University of Technology.
      
   8. Samuels, Ivor. Typo-morphology and Urban Design Practice, Urban Morphology Research Group, School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, (un-dated).
      
   9. Tice James, Theme and Variations: A Typological Approach to Housing Design, Teaching, and Research, University of Oregon, Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), Vol. 46, No. 3 (Feb., 1993), pp. 162-175.
      
   10. Conzen M. R. G.. Alnwick, Northumberland: A Study in Town-Plan Analysis, Transactions and Papers (Institute of British Geographers), No. 27 (1960).
       
   11. Whitehand J.W.R. Continuity and Discontinuity in Urban Landscape
       
   12. Moudon A.V. Urban Morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field, Urban Morphology (1997) Vol. 1, Pg 3-10.
       
   13. Levy Albert, Urban Morphology and the problem of the modern urban fabric: some questions for research, Urban Morphology (1999) Vol. 3, Issue 2, pg 79-85.
       
   14. Whitehand J.W.R. British Urban Morphology: The Conzenian tradition, Urban Morphology (2001) Vol. 5, Issue 2, pg 103-109.
       
   15. Gauthiez Bernard The History of Urban Morphology, Urban Morphology (2004) Vol. 8, Issue 1, pg 26-35.
       
   16. Glossary, International Seminar on Urban Form, Online version
       
4. Online Discussions
   
   1. Patel Kush, Typology and Urban Morphogenesis: a combinative theoretical premise for a graduate level thesis enquiry <http://www.archnet.org/forum/view.jsp?message_id=70456>
      

Typology Context and their Relevance.

I wrote this paper back in my first year and I have edited a few pars of this paper, purposefully cut it short to make it more concise. It is very well possible that a few things might not be as clear as you would want it to be. So all the question and queries are welcome.

Almost since the birth of type in architecture there have been two distinct doctrines on type, each with its own devout followers. One- epitomised by Marc Antine Laugier’s ‘primitive hut’- bases concepts on type of idealistic or primitive models (archetypes) that refer to the imitation of nature and propagate a generic formal content. The other derives from practice driven design methodology that pursues a differentiated solution of specific formal instances (prototypes). Generally these doctrines are seen to diametrically opposed – a view reinforced by ANTHONY Vidler in his influential text ‘ The Third Typology’, which defined three historical phases in the conceptual appropriation of the type: the Enlightenment, the Modern Movement and Neo Rationalism.

This paper departs from Vidler’s view and raises the question of the relevance of type in the global scenario. On one hand it would analyse the existing concept of type, and on the other hand, look into the tradition where typal ideas are pursued as a means to derive new forms and organisations as a product of generative process.

The paper concludes propagating a new way to look at typology which strikes a right balance between afore mentioned schools of thoughts.

Urban theory of any kind operates at the level of opinion. It is successful not as predictive device but as a prescriptive one. Its success is measured to the extent it persuades the undertaking of real action.

-William Ellis

INTRODUCTION:

Urban Contextualism.

In the existing literature it has already been told that typology shouldn’t be mistaken for a prototype which is replicated over and over, rather it is an idea which has stood the test of time and is represented in its minimum possible form. The idea behind any type is usually deciphered by analyzing its evolution and history of the related context.

Let us assume the context as a universal set of constraints and assumptions which govern the further design process at any given point of time. Mentioning time here becomes important because sometimes a lot of variable design determinants are taken as given constants when they are not anticipated to change in due course of time. Though if the time span taken under consideration is considerably long, then considering the determinants as constants suddenly doesn’t seem to be bright thing to do. Taking into account that some determinants may vary, the typology is always referred as a time bound entity.

Now if the universal set referred to in the previous paragraph has a definite boundary, (here author is referring to an arbitrary boundary which defines the paradigm) the elements within this set are closely set together so as to influence forthcoming development in a certain way. The question here is:

‘How do we define the boundary?’ who decides that which element of the universal set is close enough to be taken as a part of context?

This concept of closeness is not only defined by the parameter of distance, but also by the intimacy of the relation shared between the intervention and the urban context. This idea of intimacy of relations becomes easier to perceive when the intervention is in an existing settlement i.e. the choice and boundary of the context becomes relatively obvious for the designer. The immediate surroundings of the site guide the designer to assume certain paradigm to work with. It is also clear that considerations of context are not just concerned with the ‘place’ in a physical sense but also with the people that create, occupy and use the built environment.

What if the distance parameter is not apparent or doesn’t exist?

What if you are dealing with a virgin land away from any human settlement?

What if the program of the project is something first of its kind, and doesn’t lead you to any significant existing literature or case study?

So as you see, without any ‘apparent immediate context’ suddenly one realizes that the paradigm of context sometimes becomes very subjective and individualistic. The burden of being a designer also makes one to carry the responsibility to explore and then derive (guidelines/conclusions?) to show the way for the future unseen.

The Future Unseen

The future can only be predicted, and a prediction is always based on some pattern of events happened in the past. ‘Pattern’ is a significant part of the above statement i.e. a prophecy is not based on any random event taken place, but is based on a series of similar kind of events occurred over a period of time, which are conclusive enough for someone to have an opinion/ logic about their occurring.

What if there has not been a single event which is similar to the occurrences in the past or the events going on?

How do you predict then?

In this scenario, predicting the future becomes pure guess work, and it can be disastrous some times. I am not saying that the guessing is completely baseless and purely instinctive; we know it is still based on chain of certain occurrences of the past, but the relevance of those events falls under a big question mark. The chances of success become 50-50. In order to bend the chances slightly the favorable way, (I believe the chances can never be 100 % for either of the ways) we analyze the events and try to reach a decisive conclusion.

The discontinuity in the similarity of events also sometimes helps you to arrive at a conclusion that change is indispensable and is happening at a very steady pace. The realization and acknowledgement of this very fact provides you the ability to predict something new which might not exactly fit into the usual expected scheme of events. This power of doing something new enables us to break the shackles and explore new horizons.

Despite all the criticism, Modernism remains an important phase in the history of architecture, and it had a great influence on the theories later. It was also seen an abrupt discontinuity in the evolution of architecture; it showcased something which had a completely different set of assumptions. This discontinuity as perceived towards the end of nineteenth century, thus came to be seen as a discontinuity between the past and the present which superseded a more superlative and abstract future.

Thereby this contemporary urbanism owes its roots to the non-perseverance of the obvious.

The First typology^*

Vidler discovered the first typology in the famous hut of the Abbe Laugier. Nature itself became the model for architecture. The structure of the hut was recognized and compared to the structure of temple. The city was perceived as a forest of huts.

A city was a natural agglomeration; the urban designer was the gardener. This gardener could cultivate the forest of huts bringing it back to the rational, geometric order of real nature. Methodological classification became an important instrument. Buildings could be ordered and classified similarly to the manner in which plants and animals were classified in biology.

First, for purposes of classification, buildings were seen in the same way as plants were vegetable way: the appearance (physiognomy) of buildings was the ground for their classification. In a second stage buildings were seen in analogy with animals: the constitutional structure of a building was the equivalent of the animal skeleton.

Finally this first typology led to the work of Durand. Although he disliked the ideas of Laugier, Durand elaborated classifications or 'generative types' into a practical handbook, where he ordered building elements on a geometric raster, showing all kind of combinations and permutations. History could be seen as the natural development pushing through the originating of all possible combinations. This was an evolutionary and almost Darwinist perspective, where selection divided things into existing and not-surviving types. We summarize the main assumptions of the first typology:

1. Nature as origin, model and analogy to legitimate architecture: the hut.

2. The city is the accumulation city (forest of huts); the city should be cultivated to the rational order (urban designer as gardener).

3. A cultivated landscape.

4. Classification of buildings and the built environment in a hierarchical way (tree structure).

5. Design by combination of building-elements to types, this means design as the exploration of (theoretical) possibilities.

6. The development of architecture, urban design and the city goes forward in an evolutionary way.

The Second typology^*

The second typology was contemporary with industrial development. The machine was chosen as the model for architecture and figured as legitimizing agent. The human being, according to Vidler, was seen as a unique physical type, which led to the interpretation that, for this type, a set of standard needs could be made explicit.

Within this second typology Vidler first distinguishes machines used to discipline people. By these machines he means buildings like hospitals, lunatic asylums, prisons, etc. Human beings were the rough material that was brought into these machines to make them an adequate product. A famous example of such a machine was the Panopticon of Bentham, the utilitarian philosopher, in general aiming at the greatest possible happiness for as many as people as possible, but in the case of the Panopticon aiming at the greatest possible supervision for as many people as possible, by as few as possible. The machine-analogous buildings were small enclaves within the city, sometimes even surrounded by walls, or they were enclaves in the landscape, seen as a curative environment. In fact, they almost had no impact on form and structure of the city.

A next stage in the second typology was the machine as the efficient producer of goods, as many as possible. The city was also seen as an efficient machine which made the user (the raw material put into the machine) a happy person because the machine could satisfy his needs.

The industrial era and the power of the machine were so overwhelming, that people in this era were fascinated by it. Machines even could produce machines, so reality would become totally artificial.
Another characteristic of the second typology was the assumption that architecture and urban design had to create a hypothetical society, a hygienic utopia, which also literally meant that all residential 'machines for living' were situated in a park-landscape. To summarize the main assumptions of this second typology:

1. In principle man is the user of the built environment. Man has standard needs; these can be discovered by means of research and can be satisfied by mass production.

2. The city is an efficient machine and the urban designer is a builder of machines.

3. The city is a (mono-) functional ordered whole, the main functions (dwelling, working, recreation, transport) can be subdivided according to the needs of the population.

4. Urban design takes a hypothetical society as point of departure. Landscape is curative; the city becomes a park-landscape.

5. The city obeys to an evolutionary development, which can be guided by man.

The Third typology^*

The third typology, introduced by the Neo-Rationalists, first of all meant a break with the idea that architecture and urban design had to seek for an external legitimacy. The concept of type in the third typology was radically different from that in the second typology: a type was not the end of a process of combination, selection and permutation, but the type was first and all. The city was not seen as a collection of elements that could be classified. The city was seen as a totality of fragments, which had their own meaning, but contributed in their own way to the whole of the urban fabric.
Emphasis on morphological permanence, archetypal forms, collective memory and historical continuity made the third typology a reflective approach. To summarize the third typology:

1. The city is architecture, architecture is autonomous, there is no analogy needed to give legitimacy to architecture and urban design.

2. The characteristic of the city is its historical continuity, reflected in the morphology of the city; the city has permanence; the city is the collective memory of society (static component).

3. The city is an artifact, mediating between culture and nature.

4. The city is a collection of concepts, stacked during time; the city is complex and a layered phenomenon.

5. The city is a collection of types.

6. The city is fragmented, but fragments have a meaning and contribute to the whole.

7. The city needs an ontology i.e. morphology.

The Fourth typology?

It is true that we face a new stage of urban development, with the possibility of a new type of reality to emerge, and then a new typology is necessary. This typology has to respond to the emerging phenomenology of the territorial city. But, can we speak of a relation of this fourth typology to former typologies?

Computerization takes command….

Looking back to the second typology, the idea of the urban field was strongly linked to the main metaphor of the second typology: the machine. The idea was that a completely new environment could be created in a mechanical way.
If the territory city is the continuation of the second typology, then there is also an important difference: the mechanical machine as analogy has been replaced by the electronic machine, the computer as analogy, making functional has been replaced by making computable.
Common to both is the idea, that the computer, as the mechanical machine, is capable of creating a completely new environment, a digital city, a virtual world, a worldwide network city, where our lives are conducted in tele-presence. The so called second generation modernists use the computer in an instrumental way, to generate architectural designs and urban forms. Their work, categorized as super-modernism, can be considered to be the apocryphal late development of modernism: it does not belong to the modernist canon any longer and is exaggerating the modernist principles.
But, if the metaphor of the machine had lead to a kind of structure (the functional city) the metaphor of the computer does not do so. The computer has a network-structure, so the city is seen, in mimetic fashion, as a network city. Only, how to interpret the network as a physical or social concept?
Fore shortening some recent views, the network is in principle a labyrinth like structure, of multiple choices, and the city can be compared to a rhizome.

To conclude:

The question is: do we need a fourth typology? The answer is: Yes, we do, but not just the emerging fourth typology as, on the one hand the continuation, and on the other the sublimation of the second typology. For, do we realize the consequences of this sublimation in an ontology in which computerization takes command?

We also have to be aware that the assumptions and questions of the third typology, which can be seen now as an interruption of the road from second to fourth typology, will not disappear, because they refer to fundamental qualities of the built environment, put emphasis on the static, on permanence and historical continuity, the meaning of morphology and the dimension of the urban field as a well structured space for human being. For this a phenomenological approach is essential.
Referring to the phases Corboz has typified: the fragmented city and the territory city have to be considered as the pre-paradigmatic phase of a new emerging paradigm on which we have to reflect. These phases are no successive phases, but form the two layers of a new paradigm. From this paradigm, hopefully, relevant assumptions of the first, second and third typology will be part.

Reference List:

Image source: http://gallery.photo.net/photo/6601781-md.jpg

1. Krier Rob, Urban Spaces, 1991 ed., Academy Editions, London, UK, 1975.

2. Bacon Edmund N., Design of Cities, 1976 ed., Penguin (Non-Classics), New York, USA, 1967.

3. Trancik Roger, Finding Lost Spaces, 1986 ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, USA, 1986.

4. Broadbent Geoffrey, Emerging Concepts In Urban Space Design, 2001 ed., Spon Press, New York, USA, 1990.

5. Carmona Matthew, Heath Tim, Oc Taner, Tiesdell Steven, Public Spaces- Urban Spaces. The Dimensions of Urban Design, 2004 ed., Architectural Press, Burlington, UK.

6. Petruccioli Attilio, Typological Process and Design Theory- proceedings of the international symposium sponsored by the Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture at Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.1998, Cambridge.

7. Moor Malcom, Rowland Jon, Urban Design Futures,2006 ed., Routledge Publications, London and New York, 2006.

8. Carmona Matthew, Heath Tim, Oc Taner, Tiesdell Steve, Public Spaces-Urban Spaces-The Dimensions of Urban Design.2004 ed, Architectural Press, Burlington, UK.

9. Hayward Richard, McGlynn, Making Better Places: Urban design Now,1993 ed. Architectural Press, UK.