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.