{"id":36598,"date":"2023-09-25T20:37:30","date_gmt":"2023-09-26T03:37:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/spacing.ca\/vancouver\/?p=36598"},"modified":"2025-08-14T10:48:14","modified_gmt":"2025-08-14T17:48:14","slug":"s101s-describing-building-types-formal-and-use-types","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/spacing.ca\/vancouver\/2023\/09\/25\/s101s-describing-building-types-formal-and-use-types\/","title":{"rendered":"S101S: Describing Building Types: Formal and Use-Types"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

What are formal building types and use-types, and why is this differentiation important to planning?<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

With a broad background on building types and it\u2019s relevance to urban planning behind us<\/a>, we\u2019re ready to focus our attention on understanding two broad categories of building types\u2014formal and use-types\u2014and discuss why these matter.<\/p>\n

First, let\u2019s do a very quick recap of relevant details. Architectural building types have a rich history focusing on the classification of buildings. Typological studies establish a system of analysis that breaks the city down into fundamental components evident in all settlements, regardless of culture, location, or history. Building types are abstract, emerging and evolving in response to an extremely complex set of social, cultural, environmental and economic conditions. Only the broader socio-cultural collective can invent and adapt building types to their specific needs over time\u2014individuals and organizations have very limited control<\/i> over them. As such, their development and evolution are inherently unpredictable. However, building types can<\/i> be manipulated, but only by making changes to the conditions<\/i> from which they arise, not the building type itself.<\/p>\n

It is believed that ancient civilizations simply differentiated \u201chouse\u201d and \u201cnon-house\u201d building types. Arguably, this is where our confusion between form and use began since the form<\/i> of the house and its use<\/i> were fused together under a single label. This is where we will pick up the story.<\/p>\n

So\u2026.what is a \u201cformal\u201d building type?<\/p>\n

\u201cFormal\u201d building type refers to the classification of buildings based on their physical form<\/i>. So, it focuses on the visual and structural characteristics that certain buildings share across time, space, and culture. Physical characteristics include but are not limited to, circulation and interior layout, entry conditions, site and lot conditions, scale, and shape.<\/p>\n

Defining a specific building type, however, is where things get a little slippery since every repetitive building has something<\/i> different than the next. This being the case, Brenda Case Scheer stated it best in The Evolution of Urban Form: Typology for Planners and Architects<\/span><\/em>\u2014required reading for everybody in the field, to my mind\u2014when she said:\u201dEach individual building of a given type is an exemplar of that type, a variation that contains all the elements of the abstract term but may also look quite different from any other example<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n

This is to say that there is no<\/i> universal or standard classification of specific building types. Each can and often does vary relative to the next to some degree and the degrees of difference may<\/i> warrant the development of a new type, or simply be categorized as a minor variation within a given type. At this level, it\u2019s more art than science.<\/p>\n

There are many examples of formal building types. On the residential side, these include the San Francisco row house and Singapore\u2019s Chinese Shophouse. However, a local example would serve us well. The Vancouver Special<\/a> has standard physical formal<\/i> attributes: it is two stories with the first level at grade (no basement). The second level is the \u201cmain\u201d level leaving an \u201cunfinished\u201d ground level available for a secondary suite alongside the mechanical room. The upper \u201cmain\u201d level, on the other hand, is a fully functioning dwelling with 3 bedrooms: the layout has the public spaces (living, kitchen, dining) on one side of the house with the private spaces (bedrooms and bathroom) on the other, divided by a corridor.<\/p>\n

A shallow balcony fronting the street\u2014accessed by large sliding glass doors\u2014extends along the entire or partial width of the house on the second level. The Specials are known for their shallow-pitched roofs. The simple structures are often finished in stucco, with come having brick for the street-facing facade.<\/p>\n

In terms of site conditions, the building dimensions maximized the allowable regulations of the time with a common depth of +45ft. and the width of +26 ft as well as a covered carport at the rear. The Vancouver Specials are freestanding houses with standard rear and front yard depths.<\/p>\n

As with other building types, Vancouver Special\u2019s have all sorts of variations that have transformed certain aspects over time \u2014from interior layouts to building finishes. Some of these changes may warrant the creation of a new type depending on how different they are from the \u201coriginal\u201d. But again, there is not a universal definition of the \u201cVancouver Special\u201d so this becomes a game of nuance.<\/p>\n

So, given the vagueness, why bother classifying formal<\/i> building types at all?<\/p>\n

Well, the key here is that formal<\/i> building type classifications free themselves from the \u201cuse\u201d of a building: the critical distinction between formal<\/i> versus use-types<\/i>. Where formal studies focus on the physical attributes, use-type classifies buildings based on their functional purpose and the activities that occur within them. This includes but is not limited to buildings like \u201clibraries\u201d, or \u201crecreation centres\u201d, \u201cshopping centres,\u201d \u201chospitals,\u201d\u201ctheatres,\u201d or \u201ccourthouse\u201d. These fall under larger use categories such as \u201ccommercial,\u201d \u201cinstitutional\u201d or \u201crecreational\u201d to name a few. Within residential uses, one can have many use-types ranging from \u201csingle-family\u201d to \u201capartment\u201d.<\/p>\n

Although there is certainly a relationship between the form of a building and the activities within, its physical form cannot be presumed from its function. So with use-type, there is no explicit indication of the formal<\/i> or physical character of the building. This makes it easier to innovate and experiment with them, specifically for those who design buildings.<\/p>\n

This understanding allows us to clarify the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. In focusing on the physical attributes, formal<\/i> building type analyses separate themselves from specific functions associated with buildings, allowing folks to understand how the physical characteristics of a buildings perform over time<\/i>. History is filled with buildings that have transformed use within the same physical structure. Freestanding houses have changed from residential to commercial and office uses, for example, while ancient theatres have been changed to housing. Such transformations speak to the inherent capacity of certain physical forms and spaces to adapt to different conditions. Very useful information for those planning cities, don\u2019t you think?<\/p>\n

This comes at the expense, however, of the openness of defining a building by use. Despite the slipperiness of defining specific formal<\/i> building types, they are still much more specific than use. Think of how many different \u201csingle family house\u201d forms there are: are we talking about a Vancouver Special?  <\/span>A New England Saltbox? A shotgun house? A Levittown house? Simply put: the ambiguity of use-type allows folks to understand and use the general activities within a given building types, without begin bogged down by a strict set of specific physical characteristics.<\/p>\n

Now, let\u2019s address the issue we began with: the early history of building types caused a Big Confusion that continues today\u2026one that fuses form<\/i> and use<\/i> under single labels. This is an issue that prevents the meaningful discussion about cities everywhere, as people say one thing and mean something else. It\u2019s common, for example, for many to vilify \u201csingle-family houses\u201d currently as a broad use-type, despite the fact that there are many specific (formal) building types that have shown the capacity to adapt to higher densities and different uses over time. It\u2019s not an all-or-nothing issue.<\/p>\n

The Vancouver Special<\/a> will serve us well here again since it can effectively double and sometime triple the density of the stereotypical \u201csingle-family house\u201d use-type under which it is categorized. This capacity is due to its physical characteristics. The fact that it has the built-in capacity to separate activities by floor level means that it can adapt to very different uses. The bottom floor can be be changed to commercial uses, for example, with the upper level remaining residential. Or vice versa. As such, although it looks very different, it shares the attributes with much older (formal) building types like the ancient shophouse\u2014one of the most robust, adaptable formal building types created by humans to-date.<\/p>\n

The above example serves as a good entry into some final insights. Not only is building type\u2014as a general category\u2014confused with other complex issues like density<\/a> or specific development approaches like Transit-Oriented Development<\/a>, but even within<\/i> the discussion of building types, it is often unclear if and when people are talking about formal or use-types. Like with so many planning related issues, clarity is important.<\/p>\n

Although conversations about use-type are excellent for typological innovation, within the context of planning and designing cities over time<\/i>, discussions should focus on formal<\/i> building-type and how the physical attributes<\/i> of specific buildings have performed over time. Not only can these attributes translate readily into targeted regulations and policies, but such an approach will also prevent the common trap of worshipping the newest, novel building types. Formal building types have a lineage of thousands of years, learning from them is simply common sense.<\/p>\n

Moreover, many common planning goals can be achieved through understanding formal building types. Many municipalities speak about creating resilient cities or neighbourhoods, for example, and an appreciation of flexible, adaptable building forms and systems is necessary to meet that goal. Several types that can serve this end. Are there building types that are more conducive to making community through increasing social collisions? There sure are. Again, all it takes it understanding the connection between building forms and different outcomes.<\/p>\n

Ironically, few municipalities around the world have any information on the formal building types within their boundaries, let alone meaningful global examples. Instead, use<\/i> is often the basis of urban planning discussion and regulations, undermining meaningful discussions about the physical environment and its transformation over time. Even at the large scale of planning, breaking down the city by land use<\/i> is the most common\u2014categorizing areas by the activities that take place within. Although informative, this leaves out an understanding the physical implications and nature of a place created through these regulations. A \u201cresidential\u201d area depicted on a land use map says nothing about the physical character of a place. Is it bungalows? Vancouver Specials? Who knows. Similarly, \u201ccommercial\u201d areas can mean anything from malls to corner stores. At the urban scale, it is useful to set aside the use of buildings as a means of discovering more basic, fundamental physical patterns.<\/p>\n

Local schools of architecture and those that study urban morphology<\/a> (an important topic we\u2019ll cover in future pieces) can help with the typological information deficit of municipalities, however. Typological studies on formal building types and use-types happen frequently within their domains and one can see how collaborations can be fostered between these different institutions.  <\/span>Unfortunately, most planning schools do not engage typological studies in any meaningful way, less so formal building types. This explains the default use-based approach of the urban planning discipline.<\/p>\n

With our foundation on building types now set, future pieces of the S101S<\/i>: Describing Building Types<\/i> series will focus on understanding specific formal building types relevant to the contemporary city. Until then\u2026.<\/p>\n

In summary<\/b>:<\/span><\/p>\n