TYPE AS APPARATUS

Typology is, simply put, a categorization and classification of given characteristics. It follows Foucault introduction quoting Borges as “strange categories [with] precise meaning and a demonstrable content”, that by demonstrating another system of thought makes clear the limitation of our own.

In architecture, typology is often defined as a programatic categorization of functions: types of housing, offices, markets and so on. This approach implies a modernist view on the relationship between space and its use. Namely, it recalls the concept of zoning on the architectural planning. It is interesting to start this section talking about zoning in a sense brought by Peter Blake in Form follows fiasco, in which the separation of functions is stated as one of the reasons of the failure of the modernist ideal. The concept of housing, for that matter, could be today understood as outdated, with architectural theory claiming more and more integration and a dynamic relationship between different activities and events in society. The very idea of zoning does not make sense in our contemporary society - we can just bring to mind the revolution caused by a smartphone in the way we communicate with the outside. To avoid the conceptualization of type as a zoning classification, I would suggest using another definition of typology.

On the other hand, the definition of typological architecture advanced on this research follows the line described by Aldo Rossi, based on purely architectural-formal terms, in what the author calls it a formal apparatus, where “type preserves and defines the internal logic of forms not by techniques or programs” and is a “juxtaposition of memory and reason”. By that, Rossi prescribe an architecture in which its values are derived from the idea of the city, of a dynamic of uses and representations through time that became rules instead of models, in other words, modes of understanding spatial relationships instead of the copy of received examples. From this definition, Rossi defines an architectural "theory of the city form", that could lead to an understanding of real problem, and in itself, an architecture of autonomy. In this sense, typological studies are the only way as architects to understand the politics of the city, once the build environment, through time, is always a reflection of the “expression of the dominant class”.

Advancing the concept of type, thus, is a way to void the built examples from specific qualities, that although important as an object overview, do not contribute to a historical understanding of the relationships between the city, its politics and society. By that I mean first, the idea of the function - once it is presupposed that that are no direct fixed relationships between form and function, and secondly, the idea of ornament. Specific detailing and representational elements concern the individual but I suggest that do not alter the spatial articulation between the building and society.

Typology then becomes a tool to read the city in its history. Following Holl (Pamphlet - Alphabet City) and Willis (Form follows finance), I argue that architectural form in general - hence, type - is a result of society's relationship to space through economy and policies in a deeper and more profound way than to stylistic or theoretical desires of architects in any period. As stated by Willis, rules and regulations put forth are the responsible to shape the existing buildings, and alongside financial movements create the possibilities for the advance of architectural enterprises. Abstracted then from its individuality, the building become a model, a series of spatial relationships that relate to the role it can play on society at any given time. And my interest in a typological study of the city is to advance the articulation of this relationships as the creation of the city itself. By understanding spatial types as the form of the city, spaces that can contain - due to their formal characteristics - a different set of programs in which the city could be derived, we can articulate a new mode of building the city.