{"id":36596,"date":"2023-09-11T10:00:51","date_gmt":"2023-09-11T17:00:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/spacing.ca\/vancouver\/?p=36596"},"modified":"2025-08-14T10:48:47","modified_gmt":"2025-08-14T17:48:47","slug":"s101s-describing-building-types-why-they-matter","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/spacing.ca\/vancouver\/2023\/09\/11\/s101s-describing-building-types-why-they-matter\/","title":{"rendered":"S101S – Describing Building Types: Why They Matter"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Why is an understanding of building types important to urban planning and design? What aspects of planning are they connected to?<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Given that urban planning involves the systematic organization and design of the built environment, building types are an important part of the planning puzzle. Many wrongly assume, however, that how building types are defined, understood and used is a straightforward matter. Nothing can be further from the truth. We\u2019ve already seen how specific building types are confused with density<\/a> and Transit-Oriented Development<\/a>, for example. So, I think it\u2019s time to tackle this issue head-on. But unpacking this will take time\u2014well beyond one piece. This being the case, let\u2019s start with a little history and take a step back to look why building types matter.<\/p>\n

Beginning with basics: building type is an idea that has a rich architectural history. Although we will be focusing on the latter, typologies<\/i>, broadly speaking, are simply classification systems and, as such, are not confined to the architecture discipline. Many others, like biology, use the idea of types due to its inherent usefulness: a usefulness that come from its abstraction. That is, building types are abstract. <\/i>But the foundations typological studies lie in the fact that they try to establish a system of analysis that breaks the city down into fundamental components evident in all settlements, regardless of culture, location, or history.<\/p>\n

It may seem obvious, but it\u2019s important to clearly state that building types include all buildings. Architects often like to differentiate \u201cArchitecture\u201d with a capital \u201ca\u201d from all other buildings, of \u201carchitecture.\u201d Building types see no such distinction. The ordinary and extraordinary buildings are of equal value. <\/p>\n

Although the exact origins of the concept of architectural typology is unknown, it clearly has ancient roots. Early urban civilizations developed distinct building types based on their needs and categorized them, accordingly. It\u2019s believed that the earliest categorization system simply differentiated \u201chouse\u201d and \u201cnon-house.\u201d Arguably, this is where our confusion begins: since the form<\/i> of the house and its use<\/i> were fused together under the \u201chouse\u201d label. We\u2019ll loop back to this when we discuss formal versus use-types in a later piece. For now, let\u2019s get back to some important history and context.<\/p>\n

Over time, as more complex urban cultures developed, the \u201cnon-house\u201d category expanded and diversified. In came everything from temples to basilicas, schools to universities, libraries to community centres, museums to art galleries, barns to airports. The list goes on and on, as we know. The \u2018house\u2019 followed suit, exploding to include everything from the Japanese Machiya to the Roman villa, single-family homes to apartments, townhouses to laneway homes, condos to cottages, cabins and bungalows, duplexes to farmhouses, to name only a handful. I won\u2019t even touch stylistic variants, like the \u201cAmerican Craftsman\u201d, \u201cGreek Revival\u201d or \u201cNeo-classical.\u201d Academically, many consider Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand<\/a>‘s influential book Pr\u00e9cis des le\u00e7ons d\u2019architecture donn\u00e9es \u00e0 l\u2019\u00c9cole royale polytechnique<\/em> \u2014written in the early 1800s\u2014to be first official text that systematized architectural building types.<\/p>\n

Needless to say, contemporary cities are storehouses (pun intended) of building type. Hence, their importance to urban planning. It\u2019s very important to note, however, that individuals and institutions have very limited control<\/i> over the design and evolution of building types. That is: building types emerge and evolve in response to a highly complex set of social, cultural, environmental and economic conditions<\/b>. Individuals\u2014such as designers\u2014 and organizations can and do attempt to guide them using everything from imaginative proposals to regulations, but ultimately only the broader socio-cultural collective can invent and adapt building types to their specific set of needs over time.<\/p>\n

This points to an important insight: building types can only be manipulated by making changes to the conditions<\/i> from which they arise, not the building type itself<\/b>. This is no small feat, however, since the conditions are complex and entangled.<\/p>\n

This being the case, building types are very unpredictable. Although it\u2019s easy to assume that those intimately associated the designing the built environment\u2014architects and designers, for example\u2014drive building type creation and development, this is not the case. No single person, discipline or organization can be credited. The airport or strip mall as building types, for example, were born in response to a myriad of factors; their evolution the result of a complex web of people contributing from a wide array of fields alongside the transformation of larger societal values and behaviours.<\/p>\n

This can be frustrating because the \u201cbest\u201d or \u201cnewest\u201d solutions are not necessarily those \u201cchosen\u201d by society-at-large to build. What is defined as the \u201cbest\u201d changes with time, after all. This is made more complicated by the fact that buildings take a lot of time and money to construct and are built of materials that longer lasting than most products. So, buildings tend to lag behind technological and cultural value shifts, fossilizing past patterns.   <\/span><\/p>\n

So, the trenches of the architectural history books are filled with interesting, innovative building type experiments that are one-offs, went obsolete, or were simply never built for one reason or another. There are a number of inventive residential towers built in the world today\u2014let alone proposed on paper!\u2014that do well to address the many social and environmental concerns associated with the building type, for example, but they remain one-of-a-kind. They are currently dead-ends in the typological evolutionary tree.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s easy to believe that the most recent types are part of a linear progression towards the \u201cbest\u201d solution and that these will be with us from here on in. Too frequently, for example, I hear people of all stripes stating with complete conviction that residential towers are the future of cities. The unpredictable nature of building types places such sentiments in the category of purely unfounded speculation. Like with any product, the newest types are the least tested, and ultimately offer us little insight into their future success. If towers are still around in 200 years\u2014let alone 1000 years\u2014they will be surely be radically different than the ones we see around us today. But residential high-rises are only one of countless new building types born over the past century or two. If history is any indication, only a handful will have significant longevity\u2014most finding their place alongside temples and blacksmith shops of the past. A humbling thought.<\/p>\n

Now, certain building types become obsolete more quickly that others\u2014particularly those that are inflexibly tied to specific uses and functions. It\u2019s important to noting, as well, that types can be regulated out of existence through policies, for better or worse. This shows how certain people and organizations can and do influence building type.<\/p>\n

With this in mind, it\u2019s worth noting that the architectural history books are also filled with types\u2014and proposed types\u2014that have been revived or re-envisioned. Architecture\u2019s \u201clag\u201d mentioned above, finds its positive side here. There are many examples of not only single buildings but full communities being revived after laying in ruins for decades.<\/p>\n

Equally important, there are are a lot of building types that have<\/i> stood the test of time. Some, like the courtyard house, have evolved with urban civilization for hundreds or even thousands of years. Building types that have longevity should be on people\u2019s radars given that they have withstood countless societal and technological revolutions. Simply put: they have stood the test of time. Why and how is of particular interest, and perhaps we\u2019ll cover some of these special types in future pieces.<\/p>\n

For now, it\u2019s worth noting that given that building types are born from social, economic, and environmental factors, they also have implications across each of these categories, beyond simply shaping the character, function, and overall layout of cities. Let\u2019s look at some of the main aspects of the contemporary city that building types are connected to:<\/p>\n