A Joumal 1'01' Ideas andCriticism in Architecture

Published 1'01" The Institutefor Architecture and Urban Studies

By The MIT PI"ess

Summel" 1978: 13~:T'(

FEB 18 198J

URBAN liND [1::1 ,ON MENTALSTUU:::: .I~Y

~CHOOL , I c I'U~E

AND LJII."I" , " ... ' .:0

In this issue: ". OppositionsFrancesco Dal CoCriticism and DeSign

Anthony VidlerPostscript

TheoryRafael MoneoOn Typology

HistoryGeorges TeyssotEmil Kaufmann and the Architecture01' Reason: Klassizismus anduRevolulional'y Al'chitecturelJ

DocumcntsJoachim Schlandt and 0" M. Ungel'sThe Vienna SuperblocksIntroduction by Sima lngberman

Reviews and Letters

On Typology

Rafael Moneo

ITo raise the question of typology in architecture is to raisea question of the nature of the at'chitectul'al work itself.To answer' it means, for each generation, a t'edefinition ofthe essence of' architecture and an explanation of' all itsattendant pl·oblems. This in turn requires the establish­ment of a theory, whose first question must be, what kindof object is a work of al'chitectUl'e? This question ulti­mately has to return to the concept of type.

On the one hand, '!. work of' architecture has to be consid­ered in its own right, as an entity initself. That is, likeother forms of a1t, it can be c aracterized by a conditionof uniqueness. From this point of view, the worl, of ar­chitecture is irreducible within any classification. It isunrepeatable, a single phenomenon. Stylistic relationshil)Smay be recognized among architectm-al works, as in theother figurative arts, but they do not imply a loss of thesingularity of the object.

On the other hand, a work of architecture can also be seenas belonging to a class of repeated objects, characterized,like a class of tools or instruments, by some general at­tlibutes. From the first hut to the archaic stone construc­tion, primitive architectw'e conceived of itself as an activ­ity similar to other kinds of craftsmanship, such as themaking of textiles, pottery, baskets, and so on. The firstproducts of this activity, which we in retrospect havecalled architecture, were no different from instruments 01'

tools: building a primitive hut required solving problemsof form and design similar in natu"e to those involved inweaving a basket, that is ill making a useful object. Thus,like a basket 01' plate or cup, the al'chitectural object couldnot only be repeated, but also was meant to berepeatable,Any changes that developed in it were particularities thatcould be found in any pl'oduct of craftsmanship over time, .In this sense, the uniqueness of the architectural objectwas denied. From this point of view a wOl'k of architec­ture, a construction, a house-like a boat, a cup, a he1­met-ean be defined through formal features, which ex­pl'ess problems running from production to use, and whichpermit its reproduction. In these tel111S it can be said thatthe essence of the al'chitectural object lies in its repeata­~,ility.

The very act of naming the architectural object is also a 23process that from the natu,'e of language is forced totypify. The identification of an architectural element like"column," or of a whole building-"coul'thouse"-impliesan entire class of' similar objects with common character­istics, This means that language also implicitly acknowl­edges the concept of tYI)e,

What then is type? It can most simply be defined as aconcept which describes a group of objects characterizedby the same formal structure, It is neither a spatial dia­gram nor the average of a serial list. It is fundamentallybased on the possibility of grouping objects by certaininherent structural similarities. It might even be said thattype means the act of thinking in groups. For instance,one may speak of skyscrapers in general; but the act ofgrouping pushes toward speaking of skyscrapel's as huge,distorted Renaissance palaces, as Gothic towers, as frag­mented pyt'amids, as oriented slabs.... Then, as onebecomes increasingly precise, one introduces other levelsof grouping, thus describing new ranks of types. Onefinishes with the name of a specific building. 1 Thus theidea of type, which ostensibly rules out individuality, inthe end has to return to !i.s origins in the single work.

Architecture, howevel'-the world of objects created byarchitecture-is not only described by types, it is alsopmduced through them. If this notion can be accepted, itcan be understood why and how the architect identifieshis work with a precise type. He is initially trapped bythe type because it is the way he knows. Later he can acton it; he can destroy it, transform it, respect it, But hestarts from the type, The design p"ocess is a way oj'Ining'ing the elements or a typology-the idea or a /O?'rnalstruct,.,'e-into lhe p"ecise slate lhal chamct81'izes Uw sin- Jgle work,

But what precisely is a formal structure? One could 3t­tempt a series of opposing definitio;1s. First the jlSrmctsof the Gestalt could be emphasized. This wOUfd meanSl)eaking about centt'ality 01' linearity, clusters or grids,trying to chal'actelize form in terms of a deeper geometry,In ,this sense, celtain texts have described all covered

24

2

•

2 El Oned in the Sahar-a, ae1ialview.

3 BCl1'a/can village neal' Pm'lMoresby, Papna, New Gninea,

centralized spaces, from the primitive hut to the Renais­sance dome to that of the nineteenth century, as being ofthe same "type,'" This however reduces the idea of typeas Formal structure to simple abstract geometry, But typeas a formal structure is, in contrast, also intimately con­nected with reality-with a vast hierarchy of concernsrunning from social activity to building construction, Ul­timately, the group defining a type must be rooted in thisreality as wel1 as in an abstract geometry, This means,for example, that buildings also have a precise position inhistory, In this sense nineteenth century domes belong toan entirely differ'ent rank of domes From, those of thRenaissance 01' Baroque per'iods, and thereby constituttheir own specific type,

This leads dir'ectly to the concept of a typological seriethat is generated by the relationship among the elementthat define the whole, The type implies the presence 0

elements fOJ'ming such a typological ser'ies and, of coursethese elements can themselves be fmther' examined anconsidered as single types; but their interaction definesprecise formal structure,

Thus, Brunel1eschi 'intr'oduced the lantern as a logical temination of the dome at Flot'ence, and this form wimitated for' almost three hundred years, The relationshibetween the classical dome and post-Gothic lantern shoulbe consider'ed as one of the most characteristic featureof Renaissance and post-Renaissance domes, giving thea certain for'mal consistency, When Enlightenment architects wor'ked with domes they entirely changed the relationship between the elements that den ned the formstl'ucture--dome and lantem-thus generating a netype, Types are transformed, that is, one type becomeanother, when substantial elements in the formal struture are changed.:1

One of the frequent arguments against typology views ias a "frozen mechanism" that denies change and emphasizes an almost automatic repetition," However, the verconcept of type, as it has been proposed here, implies thidea of change, or "r transFormation, The architect identines the type on orwith which he is working, but tha

1, Cheyenne village, Western Plains,U.S.A.

5, 6, 7, 8 Houses in Ceb"ero, uugo,Spain.

t

ye,-"

25

26

.9 Faience tablets 1'epTesentinghouses «(1ul towen, The Palace ofMinos, [(n08808, C,'ete,

10 Plans, Casa de'i Signori,Fmncesco di Gi01YJio M(!1,tini,Tratatto di at'chitettuJ'a,

JlrffON

,.. ----,Ir===-'"r'·'·~'o<~;;r.;;..,;~~

,

... _---- .....

.9

I:J.. nl~~~~.~.:~~.': ;~. ';. .:~

does noL necessaril.\'.- imply mechanical reproduction, Ofcourse, the typological approach per se does not demandconstant change; and when a type is firmly consolidated,the resultant a1'chitectural fo"ms preserve formal featuresin such a way as to allow works of architecture to beproduced by a repetitive process, cithcr an exact one asfound in industry, or an approximate one, as found incraftsmanship, But the consistency and stability of formsin such instances need not be attl'ibutecl to the concept oftype; it is just as possible to conclude that the strugglewith an identical pl'oblem tends to lead to almost identicalfo"ms, Or in other words, stability in a society-stabilityreflected in activitics, techniques, images-is mi'To"edalso in architecture,

The concept of type is in itself open to changc insofar asit means a consciousness of actual facts, including, cer­tainly, a recognition of the possibility of change, By look­ing at architectu"'ll objects as groups, as types, suscep­tible to differentiation in thci" secondary aspects, thepm-tial obsolescences appearing in them can be app,'aised,ancl consequently onc can act to change them, The typecan thus be thought of as the .li'ame within which c1u,ngeopel'lltes, a necessary term to the continuing dialectic re­quired by history, F"om this point of view, the type,I'alher than being a "frozen mechanism" to produce C11'chi­tCdurc, becomes a way of denying the past, as well as away of looking at the future,

In this continuous process of transformation, the architectcan extrapolate f,'om the type, changing its use; he candistort the type by means of a transformation of scale; hecan ovel'!ap different types to produce new ones, He can LOUSe formal quotations of a known type in a different con­text, as well as c,'cate new types by a radical change inthe techniques already employed, The list of differentmechanisms is extensive-it is a function of the inven­tiveness of architects,

The most intensc moments in architectural developmentare those when a ncw type appem's, One of thc architect'sg"eatest efforts, and thus the most deserving of admi"a­tion, is'made when he gives up a known type and cleal'!y

27

For Durand, the first aim of architecture is no longer timitation of nature or the search for pleasure and artistsatisfaction, but composition or "disposition." This ideacomposition is directly related to needs; its relevant cteria are, accordingly, convenience and economy. Conveience seeks solidity, salubrity, and comfort; economy rquires symmetry, regularity, and simplicity­attributes to be achieved with composition.

Based in this way on history, nature, and use, the typhad to be distinguished from the model-the mechanicreproduction of an object. Type expre sed the permanence, in the single and unique object, of features whicconnected it with the past, acting as a perpetual recognition of a primitive but renewed identification of thcondition of the object. Throughout the nioeteenth century, however, the idea of type was applied in exactly thopposite way. Manuals and handbooks, so important fonineteenth century architectural knowledge, offeremodels or examples. The new importance assume by p1'gmms-a word that curiously does not appear in QuatI'mere's Dictiona11J-is in clear opposition to his concept 0

type-form, and transfers the focus of theory to a nefield, that ofcomposition. Composition is the tool by whicthe architect deals with the variety of programs offereby the new society; a theory of composition is neededpl'ovide an instrument capable of coping with a diversitthat, with difficulty, can be reduced to known types. Ithis sense composition should be understood as the mecanism that resolves the connection between fOl"m and pgram-or form and function-to which a new idea of achiteeture is wedded. It is li'om this point of view that thdifference between Quatremere and someone like Durancan be seen.

According to Durand, the architect disposes of elementcolumns, pillars, foundations, vaults, and so on-whichave taken form and proportion through their relationshiwith material and with use. These elements, argues D

whenever an architeetw'al object was related to someform, a kind of logic was implied, creating a deep bondwith the past.

ITGiven this close relation between type and the disciplineof architecture, it is not surprising to find that the firstcoherent and explicit formulation of an idea of type inarchitectural theory was developed by Quatremere deQuincy at the end of the eighteenth century, precisely atthe time when the traditional "discipline" of architecturehad been thrown into question by emerging social andtechnical revolutions. 6

I' oj' Quatt'emere the concept of type enabled architectureto reconstruct its links with the past, forming a kind ofmetaphorical connection with the moment when man, forthe first time, confronted the problem of architecture andidentified it in a form. In other words, the type explainedthe rea on behind arChitecture, which remained constlllltthroughout history, reinforcing through its continuity thepermanence of the first moment in which the connectionbetween the form and the nature of the object was under­stood and the concept of type was formulated. The typewas thus intimately related with "needs and nature." "Inspite of the industrious spirit which looks for innovationin objects," Quatremere writes, "who does not prefer thecircular form to the polygonal for a human face? Who doesnot believe that the shape of a man's back must providethe type of the back of a chair? That the round shape mustitself be the only reasonable type for the head's coiffw"e?" 7

The type was in this way identified with the logic of formconnected with reason and use, and, thl'oughout history,

When a new type emerges-when an architect is able todescribe a new set of formal relations which generates anew group of buildings or elements-then that architect'scontribution has reached the level of generality and ano­nymity that characterizes architecture as a discillline.

28 sets out to formulate a new one. Often, extemal events­such as new techniques or changes in society-are re­sponsible for impelling him toward this creation of a newtype, in accordance with a dialectical relationship withhistory. But sometimes the invention of a new type is theresult of an exceptional personality, capable of enteringinto al'chitectUl'e with its own voice. (;

11 Facade combinations. J. N. L.DU"and, 1809.

29

[lJlJ

WU' .. .~J-L

iri

1h

I,-

I~I

~~I-

lrLrlo­lruuL:0· 0

JL l

i I

~illlill

WiJm

L.

illdD.ahhiii '" 'lI.IIloLloL~~1)1U(ln

rLtlW'"

11

Both mechanisms are essentially contrary to Quatre­mere's idea of type as based on elemental and primitiveforms. Quantification is-llo_ posecLagllinsLq.ll.alification:on the grid and with the axis, programs-buildings---<:ouldbe flexible as weII as desirable. The square grid ended theidea of architecture as it had been elaborated in the Ren­aissance and used until the end of the eighteenth centlll'y;lhe old definition of type, the original reason for form inarchitecture, was transformed by Durand into a methodof composition based on a generic geometry of axis super­imposed on the grid. The connection between type andform disappeared.

Durand himself avoided the idea of type; he used the wor'dgem'e when, in the third part of his book, he described thevariety of buildings classified according to their programs.He collected, and sometimes even invented, hospitals,prisons, palaces, libraries, theaters, custom houses, bar­racks, town halls, colleges (fig. 15); a collection whichpresupposed a certain concern with type, although solelyidentified with the building's use. In so doing, he repeatedthe treatment he had adopted twenty years before in his

rand, must be li'eed from the tyranny of the Orders; theclassical orders should be seen as mere decoration.' Hav­ing established the elements firmly through use and ma­terial, Durand says that the architect's task is to combinethese elements, generating more complex entities, theparis of which will-at the end, through the composition­be assembled in a single building. 'Thus Durand offers aseries of porches, vestibules, staircases, courts, etc. asparts of future buildings associated with pl'ecise programs(figs. 1 [fr'ontispieceJ, 11-14). These parts, ordered andpresented like a repeltoire of models, constitute the ma­te!"ials available to the architect. By using these palts,the architect can achieve aJ'chitecture through composi­tion and stilI retain responsibility for final unity-a clas­,ical attribute that Dunmd does not deny to the building.But how to achieve this unity? Durand proposes two in­struments with which to handle the composition, to rulethe construction of a building, whatever its p"ogram: oneis the continuous, undifferentiated {Fr'id; the other the useof the axis as a support fOI' the revel'sal of its parts.

30

1m at J:!:rt thttt ttt:~ t~-;!=~ tp;:ltl:ltt EifJ:U ~4-4-h IT-HUU·U

:b:;:!:- ±d ' II":~.~ tWl.1 ittttftR±++:tt ~4 ,...-, ttlltl ·4-t .-.- .. , • t -. •. t: ttt1 tt.: ~... ,

-

--~

13

12 Plans for porches. J. N. L.Dumrui, 1809.

13 Plan combinations. J. N. L.Dumrui, 180.9.

14 Facade combinations. J. N. L.Dumrui, 1809.

15 Pl'Ototype 1m' a lai':gro"nd,J, N, L, D"mnd, 1809,

31

..~!....

• ......... ,k_.,~.-.­.~ ...

But in proposing a list of models, and afterward definingthe rules and principles of composition, Dumnd's wo,'kanticipated the nineteenth century's theoretical approachto architecture: a knowledge based on history as a quaJ'l'yof available matedal, supported by an idea of compositionsuggested by Durand's principles, elaborated and laterfinalized in the Beaux Arts architectural system of thelast years of the centuI'y, Durand would have understood,no doubt, why the battle of styles exploded with suchvirulence in the middle of the century, "Style" was some­thing that could be added later, a final formal characted­zation given to the elements qfle" the structure of thebuilding had been defined through a composition, whichsomehow ]'eflected its program,

Durand thereby offered a simple enough method of copingwith the programs and the new building requirementsdemanded by a new society, The demand that the objectbe repeatable was superseded by a new and differentpoint of view whose basis was not sought in the natUl'e of ~ I...... 1 ~

:~: ~~j~~~e~~~~;~1 :~ji~~t,:~~: ~~~~li:\O~~ Q:~t~~,~~~~~,~si~~' '" ~0~! _~.~:smc-"_.~~n..!~~._quiries ceased to be critical. It was the immediate respon­sibility of the architectuml object as a theoretical instru­ment with an institutionalized !"Ole to mal<e itselfcomprehensible as a pl'oduct. Without doubt this new ap­proach to ",'chitectUl'e was "elated to the al)pearance of 15schools; as the product of the architect, at'chitectu,'eneeded a body of doctdne--an idea of composition ,'ein­forced by a broade,' netwo"'< of examples either of build-ings 0" of single elements,

Recu.eil et pamllele des edjfices de to"t gem'e ,," inwhich temples, chu,'ches, squares, and markets were cat­egodzed according to their program or use--eategorieswhich interested him more than their forms and morethan any related questions of style or language,

The handbooks and manuals which began to appeal' in thenineteenth century, followed Durand's teachings, simplydisplayed the material available to the profession, classi­fying buildings by their function in a way that could becaller! typological. But however much well-defined single

32 elements and vague and imprecise schematic plans fot"various kinds of programs seemed to beget generic pm'tisand thus seemed to suggest type forms, that total andindestl'Uctible fOl'mal stl'Ucture which has been defined astype was irrevocably flattened, It had become a mel'ecompositional and schematic device,

IIIWhen, at the beginning of the twentieth centm'y, a newsensibility sought the renovation of architecture, its firstpoint of attack was the academic theol'y of architectureestablished in the nineteenth centur,y., The theoreticiansof the Model'll Movement rejected the idea of type as ithad been understood in the nineteenth century, for tothem it meant immobility, a set of restrictions imposed onthe creator who must, they posited, be able to act withcomplete freedom on the object. Thus when Gropius dis­pensed with history,'o claiming that it was possible toundertake both the process of design and positive con­struction without reference to prior examples, he wasstanding against an architecture structured on typology,The nature of the architectural object thus changed onceagain, Architects now looked to the example of scientistsin their attempt to describe the world in a new way, Anew architecture must offer" new language, they be­lieved, a new description of the physical space in whichman lives, In this new field the concept of type was some­thing quite alien and unessential.

This changed attitude towaJ'd the architect's product isclearly reflected in the work of Mies van del' Rohe, inwhich the principles and aspirations of both Neoplasticismand the Bauhaus are joined, giving a certain degree ofgenerality to the example, His work can be inter'p,'etedas an uninterrupted attempt to characterize a genericspace, which could be called the space, of which aJ'chitec­ture is simply the materialization, According to this no­tion, the al'chitect's task is to capture the idealized spacethrough the definition of its abstract components, Likethe physicist, the architect must first know the elementsof matter, of space itself, I-Ie is then able to isolate aportion of that space to form a precise building, In COIl­

structing his building, he seizes this space and in doing so

he constructs a building characterized not by its use­a school, hospital, chw'ch, etc, in the manner of the ninteenth century-but a "space" in which an activity is pI'duced only latel', F,'om this point of view, the 1.1.'1', campus must be understood more as a space-a physicfragment of a conceptual space-than as a set of buildinsubmitted to a process of architectural composition, Thspace is simply made available, it could be a churchwell as a school. Mies was disturbed neithel' by I'unctionor materials; he was a builder of form-space,

Even when he designed a number of houses with thgene,'ic and quasi-typological designation of "courtyahouses" (fig, 17), the designation was more an allusiona well-known type than a reduplication of it. These housare in the end defined by the way in which the architehas mate,'ialized space; the court itself does not structurtheir disposition: in them, space takes precedence ovtype, Thus the houses are understood as sing'le aesthet'events in which the architect copes with a new realilWhatevel' connection they have with the past-in arctectonic terms, with the type-is carefully avoided in fVOl' of a generic and actual description of the curl'eworld, For Modern Movement architects also wantedoffer a new image of architecture to the society that prduced it, an image that reftected the new industrializworld created by that society, This meant that a maSproduction system had to be introduced into architecturthus displacing the quality of singularity and uniqueneof the traditional architectural "object," The type as thartificial species described by Quatremere and the typethe "average" of models proclaimed by the theoreticiaof the nineteenth century now had to be put aside; thindustrial processes had established a new relationshibetween production and object which was far removefrom the experience of any precedents, Taken to its log';cconclusion, such an attitude toward mass production win clear contradiction to the Modem Movement's 0

preoccupation with the unique spatial object, But wiregard to the idea of type, both aspects of Modern Movment theory, however contradictory, coincided in therejection of type as a key to understanding the architetural object.

16 La Ville Contmnpomine, project,Le Cm'bus'im', 1922,

16

33

_~llld~~11Jr~~·

Mass production in architecture, focused chiefly on masshousing, pe,'mitted architecture to be seen in a new light.Repeatability was desirable, as it was consonant withindustry. "The same constructions for the same requi,'e­ments," Bruno Taut wrote, 1

I and now the word "same"needed to be unde,'stood ad littmum. Industry ,'equiredrepetition, series; the new architecture could be pre-cast.Now the word type---in its p,'imary and original sense ofpermitting the exact reproduction of a model-was trans­formed f,'om an abstraction to a reality in architecture, byviltue of industry; type had become prototype,

This could be seen in Le Corbusier's work where thecontradiction between architecture as a single and uniqueevent and architecture as a process of elaboration of in­dustrial prototypes is clearly marked. I"rom the begin­ning, Lc COI'busier Was interested in this condition of anindustrial prototype allowing for limitless repetition. TheDom-ino house, of all the "industrialized" schemes pro­posed by Le COI'busier in the twenties and early thilties,insists on this theme as do the towers in the Plan Voisinor in the Ville Radieuse (fig, Hi). Later, the United'Habitation becomes a deal' example of such an attitude:it can be readapted-Marseilles, Nantes, Berlin-withoutalteration; it is a unil, the result of factory productionprocess, capable of being sent anywhere. In Le Corbu­sier's theory, the building industry should be analogous tothe auto industry; like primitive a1'chitecture, but nowthl'Ough the industrial process, the new architectureshould ,'etum to its former status as a typal instrument,

This new idea of type effectively denied the concept oftype as it had been conceived in the past, The singularityof the architectural object which in the nineteenth centuryhad permitted adaptability to site and flexibility for usewithin the f'mmework of a structure was violently deniedby the new architecture, committed to architectlil'e asmass production,

But there was a thirel argument against the nineteenthcentury's concept of typology. This argument was pro­vided by functionalism, Functionalism-the cause/effectrelationship between ,'equirements and form-seemed to

17 COU1tyanl houses, plan. Miesvan der Rohe, 1938.

18 Viclorian era ,·ow houses,Newcaslle upon Tyne, England.

20 Analysis·of building plans.Alexande,· Klein, 1934·

19 Single family house plans andci,·culalion diagmms. Alexand.,·[(lein, 1934.

34

:•__ ~_ ......_.,.=_ .Jr

17

provide the rules for architecture without recourse toprecedents, without need fot' the historical concept oftype, And, although functionalist theory was not neceS­sarily coincident with the other two attitudes all'eady de­scribed, all three had in common the rejection of the pastas a fOl'm of knowledge in architecture. Yet each followeda diffet'ent path; functionalism was mainly concerned withmethod, while the other two dealt with figurative spaceand production respectively. The unique qualities of eachproblem, of each precise context for which functionalismseemed to provide a unique t'esolution, seemed to be posedagainst the idea of a common stmcture that characterizedtype, Architectul'e was predetermined not by types, butby context itself. As an almost inevitable conclusion, ar­chitectut'al theories connected with functionalism delib­el'ately )'ejected typology.

Paradoxically, functionalist theory, which explicitly stoodagainst typology, also provided the ba,is for a new un­del'standing of the idea of type. This consciousness of typeappears in the work of al'chitects such as Taut, May,Starn, etc., who were grouped around the ClAM congress,and can be found in a number of writing&------<l,g. the classicwork by W, R, S. Yorke on The Moele?~t Flat. >2

The attitude perhaps becomes most explicit in the workof Alexander Klein, Klein's attempt to systematize all theelements of the single house in his Das Ei?,rarnilienlw.uswas a clear and new approach to the problem (figs. 19,20)." While recognizing the value of the type' as a stl'llC­ture undel'1ying and giving fOI'm to the elements of anyarchitectul'e, he was at the Same time able to modify andexplore the type without accepting it as the inevitablept'oduct of the past. In so doing', he attempted to submitthe elements-identified now in terms of use-to the ra­tionality of typology by checking dimensions, clarifyingcit'culation, emphasizing orientation, The type seemed tolose both the abstract and obscure characterization of Qua­tremet'e and the frozen descril)tion of the academics.Housing types appeared flexible, able to be adapted tothe exigencies of both site and program, 1"01' Klein, thetype, far from being an imposition of history, became a\VOI'king instrument.

Theil' stalting point was the site of the Modern Move­ment's failure: the traditional city,

IVAgainst the failure of the Model'll Movement to use typein terms of the city, a new series of writings began toappeal' in the sixties which called for a theory to explainthe formal and structural continuity of traditional cities.These saw the city as a formal structul'e which could beunderstood through its continuous historical development.From this point of view architectul'e was considered nei­ther as the single artistic event proposed by the avant­garde nor the industrially produced object, but now as aprocess, in time, of building from the single dwelling tothe total city. Accordingly, in Saverio Muratori's Stud:ipel' una opemnte Sto?'ia U?'ba?w eli Venezia the urbantexture of Venice waS examined, and the idea of type asformal stt'uctut'e became a central idea that demonstrateda continuity among the difTet'ent scales of the city, Fo"Muratori, type was not so much an abstracL concept as anelement that allowed him to understand the pattern ofgrowth of the city'" as a living organism taking its mean­ing primarily from its histot·y, He explained the historicaldevelopment of Venice as a concept that would link theinclividual elements with the overall form of the city.These types were seen as the generators of the city anclimplicit in them were the elcments that defined all othcrscales; so, fOl' example, in Venice c(~lli, C(t'l'I1,p'i, and cortial'e seen as typal elements which at'e intimately relatedwith each other, and each is without meaning if not con­sidered as types in themselves,

This appt'oach, underlining the relationship between theelements ancl the whole, proposecl a morphological methodof analysis for unclel'standing architecture, which has1'00'mecl the basis for a continued development of typol­ogical studies, In the second half of the sixties, it finds itsmost systematic and complex theoretical clevelopment inthe work of Aldo Rossi ancl his circle, But this emphasison morphology, reducing typology exclusively to the fielclof ul'ban analysis, was complemented by a renewed inter­est in the concept of type as first postulated by Quatt'e­mere and renewed by "Typologia" by G, C, Argan. lr,

35

36 Argan returned to the o"igins of the concept, interpretingQuatremel'e's definition in a more pragmatic way andavoiding the Neoplatonism that it implied, ~'or Argan thetype was a kind of abstraction inherent in the use andform of series of buildings, Its identification, however,inasmuch as it was deduced f"om reality, waS inevitablyan a posleri01'i operation, He"e Argan differed radicallyf"om Quatremere, whose idea of type approached that ofa Platonic absolute-an a lJrim'i "rorm." I~ol' Argan it wasthrough the comp",'ison and overlapping of certain formalregularities that the type eme"ged; it was the basic formthrough which series of buildings wel'e related to eachother in a comprehensible way, Type, in this sense, couldbe defined as the "inner formal structure" of a building orseries of buildings, But if the type was p",t of such anoverall stl'octure, how could it be connected with the in­dividual work? The notion of type propounded by Quatre­mere as "something vague, undefined" pl'ovidccl this an­swer, The architect could work on types freely becausethere were two moments, "the moment of the typologyanti the moment of the formal definition," which could bedistinguished from one another, For Argan, "the momentof typology" was the non-problematic moment, implyinga certain degree of ine,tia, This moment, which estab­lished a necessary connection with the past and with so­ciety, was in some way a "natural" given, received andnot invented by the form-defining artist. However, A"gangave primacy to the second, the form defining moment--­that is, he did not See typology, although inevitable, asthe primary characteristic of architecture, In this way he"evealed his respect fOl' Modern Movement orthodoxy,And yet, the very concept of type, as has been seen,opposed both Modern Movement ideology and the studiesin design method which became its natural extension inthe sixties,

If, as argued by the methodologists, architectUl'e was theformal expression of its various requi,'ements, and if thelinks between such requirements and reality could be de­fined, then architecture as a Ilroblem of method could beentirely resolved, Form, however, is in ,'eality a productof an entirely opposite methodolgy-and not the result ofmethod as was previously unde"stood, In this sense, 8,,-

nesto Roge"s, following A"gan, waS able to oppose thconcept of type-form to the concept of methodology, I

Knowledge in architecture, he proposed, implied the immediate acceptance of "types," Types were p",'t offramework defmed by reality which characterized anclassified all single events, Within this framework, tha,'chitect worked; his work was a continuous comment 0

the past, on the prior knowledge on which his work wbased, According to Rogers's theory the design procestarted with the ",'chitect's identification of a type whiewould resolve the p,'oblem implicit in the context withiwhich he was working.

Of course, the ve,'y identification of such a type waSchoice by virtue of which the architect inevitably estalished ties with society, By transforming the necessa,;1"vague, undefined" type in a single act, his worl< acquira certain consistency with a specific context. From thOpoint of view, his wO"k could be seen as a contributionthe contextualization of a more generic type, Thus, thdevelopment of a project was a pl'ocess that led fl'Om thabst'"act type to the precise reality, [n other wordth,'ough the concept of type, the architect was providwith an instmment that allowed him to undertake tdesign process in quite a diiTerent way than that dmanded by the methodological approach, Rogers's theain this way resembled a more t'"aditional approach, It wAIdo Rossi who in the late sixties bound togethe" tmorphological approach of Muratori and the mo"e trational approach of Rogers and Argan thl'Ough Quatmere, In so doing he introduced a mOl'e subtle but aproblematic notion of t,ype,

FOl' Rossi the logic of architectural form lies in a definitioof type based on the juxtaposition of memory and r8son,'7 Insofar as architecture retains the memory of thofirst moments in which man asserted and establishedpresence in the world through building activity, so tyretains the reason of form itself, The type preserves adefines the internal logic of forms, not by techniquesprograms-in fact, the type can be called "functionalindifferent," In Rossi's idea of architectu"e, the corridofor example, is a primary type; it is indifferently availab

to the program of an individual house and to a studentresidence or a school.

Because the city, or its builde,'s, has lost its own memoryand forgotten the value of these prima,-y and pe,-manenttypes, according to Rossi, the task of architects today isto contribute to their recovery. Thus the city Rossi, thesilent witness, pictures is one in which time seems to befrozen. If it is unrecognizable as any specific place, this isbecause for him there is only one ideal city, filled withtypes (rather impure types, but types nonetheless), andthe history of architecture is none othe,' than its history.

Within the city are contained the principles of the archi­tectural discipline, and the proof of their autonomy isgiven by the pe"manence of types through histoi·y. Yetthe very silence and autonomy of Rossi's images of thesetypes within the ideal city that encloses them graphicallyraise the question of their relation to reality-to a realsociety-and thereby the question of their actualizationand contextualization. Rossi's types communicate onlywith themselves and their ideal context. They becomeonly mute reminders of a more or less peliect past, a pastthat may not even have existed.

But another critic, Alan Colquhoun, has suggested thatthe possibility of a real communication between architec­ture and society is not necessarily precluded by the ideaof type." Indeed, a certain level 01' reality-which is nec­essa,'y if communication is desired-is centrally concernedwith types, because it is through the concept of type thatthe process of communication is made possible. Thus, de­nying the possibility of an architecture unrelated to intel­ligible forms of the past-that is unrelated to types­Colquhoun unde"stands architectw'e as a discipline of con­ventions; but precisely because of its conventionality, itis arbitrary and therefore susceptible to voluntarychanges. In other 'words, the architect masters meaningand, through it, he is able to enter into the process ofsociety's transformation.

Colquhoun's definition of type as a support of intelligibilityp"esents another possibility Ii'om which typology can be

observed, and in a sense rediscovered: that is, as an ex­planation of architectUl'e from an ideological point of view.This would allow for the establishment of links betweenarchitecture and society.'9 Within this other view, thearchitect has, whethe,' he likes it or not, the obligationand the duty to deal with ideological content. The types­the materials with which the architect works-a,'e seen tobe colored by ideology and assume meaning within thestructural fl'amework in which architecture is produced.In accepting a type, 01' in rejecting it, the architect is thusentering into the realm of communication in which the lifeof the individual man is involved with that of society. Thearchitect thus makes his "voluntary decisions" in theworld of types, and these "voluntary decisions" explainthe ideological Ilosition of the architect, As he works withtypes, his thought and his position are incorporated intothem, If a work of architecture need the type to establisha path for its communication-to avoid the gap betweenthe past, the moment of creation, and the world in whichthe architecture is ultimately placed-then types must bethe starting point of the design process.

Such an attitude toward typology proposes a new level ofmeaning for architectural objects in history, one that re­lates to theil' place in the public ]'ealm and their integ"alposition in society, not as autonomous objects but as ele­ments given life by the process of history itself. Thus, inthe words of George Kubler, "the time of histol'y is toocoarse and brief to be an evenly granular dm-ation suchas the physicists suppose for natural time; it is more likea sea occupied by innumerable forms of a finite number oftypes."'· The history of alt, and thel'efore the history ofarchitecture, would be the description of the "life" of thesetypes.

VBut despite this rediscovery of the concept of type inl'ecent years, it is perhap~ not so easy to find it 'acceptedas an active fact in contemporary architecture, We arecontinually being presented with ideas and images of typewhich seem to be in complete disjunction with their sup­posed realization. Thus while Louis Kahn's search" fororigins as a primary condition of architectUl'e allowed us

37

21 Catasta plan 0/ Rome showingthe a"ea 0/ the Pm'ta di Ripetta, theCm'so, and the Ospedale di SanGiacomo degli lncnmbile, 1807.

to think in terms of a possible rebil"th of Quatremere'ideas, this attitude was not necessaril,Y present in thwork of his followel's. They merely imitated the languagof this attempted return to origins without respecting thsearch itself, While it is also true that the impact of thstructUl'alist approach to the type concept has been pevasively pl'esent in a IUI'ge number of projects connectwith the recent Neo'rationalist movement, most of thepl'ojects confirm the existence of a new typological atl'tude dialectically opposed to the context in which theact, 22 However these p,'ojects present an important quetion. Can the same defll1ition of type which enabled thesarchitects to explain the growth and continuity of thtraditional city in terms of its formal structure be usedpropose new "types" in contradiction to this structureThat is, can such new projects be considel'ed as strictitypological if they merely explain the growth of the 01cities? In the works of the Krier brothe,'s the new visioof the city certainly incorporates the st,'uctural componcnimplicit in the typological approach to the old city; thcity that they draw is a complex space in which the reItionship and continuity between the diffel'ent scaleselements is the most characteristic feature (figs, 25, 29But they ",'e in reality providing only a "typological vicof this city: they are not building the city itself by usinthe concept of type. Thus, the relationship between citand place, city and time, that was earlier resolved btypes has been broken, The city that g"ows by the sucessive addition of single elements, each with its 0\\

integrity, has been lost forever. The only alternative noseems to be the ,'ep1'Odt"ction of the old city, The conceof tYI)e that was observed in the old city is used to struture the new forms, providing them with fo,'mal consisency, but no more than that. In othe,' words, typolotoday has come to be understood simply as a mechanisof composition. The so-called "typological" research tod'merely I'esults in the production of images, or in the I'

constitution of traditional typologies, In the end it cansaid that it is the nostalgia for types that gives formconsistency to these WOI'!<S,

38

The "impossibility" of continuity, and thus of the retrievof type in its most traditional and characteristic sense, '

22 William Stone Building,Peter'house College, Carnb,·idge. Si,'Leslie Mariin and Colin St. JohnWilson, 1963. Typical floor' plan.

28 Apar·t,nent tower, Srernen, WestGennany. Alvar' Aalto, 1958-196Q.

underlined by the renewed emphasis on communication­on meaning and signification in architecture. An exampleof this can be found in the work of Robert Venturi. Forexample, in his houses in Nantucket the typical image ofthe wooden American house is clearly sought (figs, 26,27). Nevertheless, while Venturi seems to have tried tomaintain the image of the vernacular house on the outside,the inner structure lacks any resemblance to 01' memoryof the old. Only the outer image "emains, and into thisimage Venturi introduces as many elements as he needs­windows, stai,'cases, etc.-without much concern for hisoliginal model. Thus, these houses defined by image con­tain a great variety of elements characterized only bytheir generality, and while these elements are almoststandard, they are lacking in any kind of explicit "elation­ship with the formal structure. The architect handles themas known materials, entities in themselves, without feel­ing the necessity to establish any linkage to a continuousformal structure. Moreove,', in spite of the generality ofthe elements, the houses are ve"y precise and singularevents and can be considered neither the expression of aknown type no,' a potentially bold appearance of a newprototype.

For Venturi, type is reduced to image, or better, theimage is the type, in the belief that through images com­munication is achieved. As such, the type-image is moreconcerned with "ecognition than with structure.

QQ

39

The result is an architecture in which a unifying image isrecognized whose elements belong clearly to architecturalhistory, but in which the classic interdependence of theelements is definitively lost. The type as inner formal 28structure has disappear'ed, and as single architectural ele­ments take on the value of type-images, each becomesavailable to be considered in its singleness as an inde­pendent fragment.

Here, in fact, ~ne is confronted with a broken structure,shattered into formally autono!"ous pieces. Venturi hasintentionally broken the idea of a typological unity which -_for centuries dominated architecture. He finds, however,and not without shock, that the image of architectu"e

40

24 Competition pl'Oject fm' a"esidential district, San Rocco,Monza. Aida Rossi, with GiO?:g1:oGmssi, 1966.

24

eme"ges again in the broken mirror. Architecture, whichin the past has been an imitative art, a description ofnature, now seems to be so again, but this time witha"chitectnre itself as a ?nodel. Architecture is indeed animitative art, but now imitative of itself, reflecting a frag­mented and discontinuous reality.

The architecture of Rossi initially seems to stand againstthis discontinuity. For he"e the unifying formal structureof type disappears. In spite of Rossi's strenuous defenseof the concept of type in the construction stage of hiswork, a subtle formal dissociation occurs and the unity ofthe formal structure is broken. This dissociation is ex­emplified in Rossi's house, where the almost wall-likestructure of the plan is connected with the pilotis belowand the vaulted roof above. There is an almost deliberateprovocation in this breakdown and recombination of types,In a highly sophisticated manne", Rossi reminds us of ourknowledge-and also our ignorance-of types; they ap­pear broken, but bearing unexpected power. It mightsaid that a nostalgia for an impossible orthodoxy emergesout of this architecture, In the work of Rossi, and eventhat of Venturi, a discomforting thought arises: was it notperhaps at the very point when the idea of type becameclearly articulated in architectural theory-at the end ofthe eighteenth century-that the reality of its existence,its traditional operation in history, became finally impos­sible'! Did not the historical awareness of the,/act of typein architectural theory forever bar the unity of its praC­tice? 01' to put it another way, is not the theoreticalrecognition of a fact the symptom of its loss? Hence thextreme difficulty of applying the concept of type to curent architecture, in spite of our awareness of its value iexplaining a historical tradition.

Changes in techniques and society-and therefore in threlationship between an institutionalized profession andits a1'chitectuml product-have led to a deep transfor­mation in the old theoretical patterns. The continuity istructure, activities, and form which in the past allowefor the consistent use of types has been se,'iously brokein modem times, Beyond this, the general Jack of faiwhich chamcterizes the present world in any collectiV

25 Leinjel.den pmject. Leon K,·ie,.,1971.

and widely shared opinion natu""lIy does not support thefixing of types.

It seems that type can no longer define the confrontationof internal ideology and external constraints. Since formalst"ucture must now support itself without the help ofexternal circumstances (techniques, uses, etc.), it ishardly surprising that architecture has taken heed of itselfand looked for self-protection in the variety of imagesoffe"ed by its history. As Hannah Arendt has writtenrecently, "something very similar seems at first glance tobe true of the modern scientist who constantly destroysauthentic semblances without, however, destroying hisown sensation of reality, which tells him, as it tells us,that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the eve­ning."" The only sensation of I'eality left for architectm'etoday resides in its history. The world of images providedby history is the only sensible reality that has not beendestroyed by scientific knowledge or by society. The bro­ken types a"e the "authentic semblances" of this reality,broken through the long process that has been describedbriefly in these pages. Fragmentation Seems to be in thesedays the concomitant of type; it is, in the end, the onlyremaining weapon left to the architect after having givenover to the architectural object its own single identity,while forgetting, very often, the specificity of the work ofarchitecture.

The object-first the city, then the building itself-oncebroken and fragmented, seems to maintain its ties withthe traditional discipline only in images of an ever moredistant memory. Thus, the culmination of the process be­ginning in a classic, post-Renaissance condition of fO"m­type is its total destruction. The traditional typologicalapproach, which has tJ"ied to recovel' the old idea of ar- 25chitecture, has largely failed. Thus, pe"haps the onlymeans architects have to maste,' form today is to destroyit.

Ultimately, the question which remains is, does it makesense to speak of type today'! Perhaps the impossibility ofdil'ectly applying old definitions to new situations has beendemonstrated, but this does not mean, however, that the

41

42

26 Tn,beck house, plans. VentU7"iand Ra'Uch, 1970.

27 Tn,beck and Wislocki Iwuses,Nantucket, MassachuseUs. Venturiand Rauch, 1970. Elevations ofTr"ubeck lun'se.

28 Ho'Use pr'oject, Heasa Raj." AldoRossi, 1970.

iLEL~:JIII

..._.

. ';7~

~ ~ ~

L --- . :1-._-

1-. .-,,i

+,El

"",'1"I:Pl

~t

"- i'-II

26

28

29 E chle1'nach pl'~iecl. Leon ]{,.ie,',/970,

•

43

4,j interest and value of the concept of type is thereby deniedcompletely. To understand the question of type is to un­derstand the nature of the architectural object today. [tis a question that cannot be avoided. The architectul"alobject can no longer be considered as a single, isolatedevent because it is bounded by the wodd that surroundsit as well as by its history. It extends its life to otherobjects by virtue of its specific ",·chitectural condition,thereby establishing a chain of related events in which itis possible to find common formal stl"Uctures. If architec­tural objects allow us to speak about both their singlenessand their shal·ed features, then the concept of type is ofvalue, although the old definitions must be modified Laaccommodate an idea of type that can incorporate eventhe present state, where, in fact, subtle mechanisms ofrelationship are observable and suggest typological expla­nations.

Notes1. See the way in which skyscl'apers have been grouped byW. Weisman in his mticle "A New View of Skyscraper History,")'The Rise of an Americall Architecture, C:dgar Kaufmann, Jr.,ed. ( ew York The MeLl'()politan Museum of Art, 1970).2. Such an approach can be found in the work of C. Norbcl'g­Schulz, hltClItioliS 1:1/ A l'c;/dfecf7ll'e (Cambridge, Mass., 1963) andt::-l.'lstcllce, Spcwe, AnhUeclnl'e (London, 1971). For him "cen­tralization is the ractOl' common to all dome~i."

3. There are no substantial differences between Renaissanceand nineteenth centul'Y domes. They lllust be considered assingle types bec~lllse of their relati vely similat· image.4. See HI'uno 2evi's arguments inA1"chilettltl'(/'in Nuce (Venice,1960), p. 169.5. Brunellesl'hi's intervention in Santa Maria del I,'iol'e, 1"101'­ence, is an evident example,6. QuaLt'enlel'C de Quincy, DiclLunu(th'e !-i'islm'ique del'Anhitectun (Pal'is, 1832), pp. 629-30, A complete study ofQuatremcre's definition and its I'elationship with thc social andideological background can be found in Anthony Vidler's articlein Oppositions, ,Spring 1977.7. Ib,,!., p. 630.g, J. N, L. Durand, Precis des Lef,;o1ls d'Architeclu1'e, X III(PariR, 1805).9. J, N, L. Durand, Recnei! el /J(/'I'(IWde dfJS Ed'UicfJS de 'I'u'U,tGenre, A11ciens et Model'l'tes, IX (Pal'is, 1801).10. See Walter Gl'opius, Scope of Totu! AJ'ch;itech/"/'c (New York,1955).11. Bruno Taut, Modern Architecture (London, 1929).12. t'. R. S. Yorke, The Mod..." Honse (L.ondon, 1934); TlteModer" FI"t (L.ondon, 1937).13. Alexander Klein, Dos Ei1~/a.11Iifienluw.s (Stuttgal"l, 1934).The I'cnewed intcl'est in current yeal's b,Y the typological pl'ob~

lem has bccn responsible for a certain rediscovcry of I<lein'sworks. A cleal' examplc of this trend would be the book byG. Grassi, La cm;lruz'ione logica dell'urchiteltlU'u (PCldua, 1967),14. Saverio Muratori, Studi per 'lOW openl11te slO1'ia u,1"baua diVenezia (Rome, 1960). Although MUl'atol'i worked on the subjectin the fifties, the essay was not published until later, first in themagazine Palladio in 1959, and later as a bool< by the IstitutoPoligl"afico della Stato (Rome, 1960). Mur'ltol"i's thoughts we,.ebased on a typological idea as th~ key concept 1'01' unden;tandingthe growth of the city, but his own intcllectual approach, ratheridealistic and obscure, did not facilitate the formation of a school.MunltOli understood the rationality implicit in the concept oftype, but he failed to produce a systematic explanation of It. Inspitc of his efforts it I'cmained an intuition born from an impre­cise and spiritualistic way of thinking. MUl"atol'i's role and a clearintl'oduction to many or these problems can be found in an articleby Massimo Scolari, "Un contributo pel' la fondazione dellascien:o-.a urbana," COlltrOS{)uziO. no. 7-8, 1971.15. The already classica "Quatl'emcl'e quotation" comes fromG. C. At'gan , who introduced the subject in his al'ticle on OITi_polagia" in thc F:l1t:iclopedia Uuive1'Sule dell'A1'te published bythe Jstituto perla Collaborazione Cultul'ale, Venice. Later thetext was re\)J'intcd in the book P1'ogeUo e Destino (Milan, 1965),16, See ~..:. {agel's, "Espcl'icnza eli un COI'SO Universilal'io," LaUtopilt deliit ReitUd (Bari, 1965). See also O,.iol Bohigas's articlel'Mctodologia y 'J'ipolog-ia," COllli'(/' mw AI"{Juileclnra addetivada(Barcelona, 1969) whicn follow Rogel's's paths,17. 'l'hel"e exists a large body of writing on Rossi's work and hisidea of type. One complete book with a key to both the wl'itin~

and the criticism about it is Rossi's SC1'itti, scerti:iull'anidteft.u1"O e fa ciUci, eel. Rosaldo Bonicalzi (Milan, 1975)Although a dil'ect reading of the texts is always the best way toknow the work, T believe that the al'Li<.:les ofE. Bonfanti, liEle­menti e Costruzione. Note sull'al'chitettura di AIda Rossi," Con­t'i'ospazio, no. to, 1970; and M. Scolari, "Un contributo per IIfondazione della scienza urbana," are of particular interesl; alSOthe book of Vittorio Savi, 1./a1"Chiteltui'a eli Aldo Rossi (Milan,1976) is of value to Rossi students. Moreovcr it is also importantin studying Rossi to pay attention to lhe w01'k or people close ~him, like Carlo AYlYlonino (see, for instance, Aymonino's COlltt;butions to Co,//sidenLz1:(m:i sulla 'ITI,01j'ologia Uiruana e let t'ipolo,glaed'il'izia (Venice, 1964); RaPPol'li tra /l/,or!'olog'ia u:ruana e li1!0~ogia edUizia (Venice, 1966); La /onnaz'lone del concetto dol Wpologia edUiz;a (Venice, 1965); La cilto. (l'i Padova (Rome, 1970~On Giorgio Grassi, scc L. Semcl'ani, G. U. Polessello, et aI., LaCostrnzione logica dell'architettIL1'a (Padua, 19()7). fl'"'inally Igood introduction to the problems surrounding Rossi and the1'elldenza is Massimo Scolari's al"licle "A vanguaJ'dia e Nuo\'lAl'chitettul'a," A'l"ch'iteUui/'Ct Rctzio1'/,ale (Milan, 1973).18. Alan Colquhoun, "'T'ypology and Design Method," A'J'ellG~oll.1·II(~l of lhe A1'chitectw'al AssocialtC!n, June, .196?; I'CPU}).

hshed 111 Charles Jencks and George Batl'd, Meanmg m Al'chteetn,.. (London, 1969). .19, It is not surprising that an architect as preoccupied Wlticommunication as Hobert Vcnturi has I>aid special attention toColquhoun's a1'ticle, Cr. Learning .f1"()111, Las Vega,,; (CambridMass, 1972).

20. George Kubler, The Shape ~r Time (New Haven, 1962),p 32.zi. cr. his lecture, "-F'orm and Design," ATChitecl'tt'itd Design,April 1961.22. Very often the typological analysis is used pt'imarily as aterm of reference to undel'scol'C the virtue of the proposed de­sign.23. Hannah Al'endt, "Reflections: Thinking," The New Yorkm',November 2J, 28, and December 5, 1977.

Figure CredilsI 11-15 Reprinted from Perspeela, 12, 1969.Z'Reprinted from Alison and Peter Smithson, O-rdina1'inessand Lighl (London: Faber & Faber, 1961).3, 4 Reprinted from Douglas Fraser, Village Planning in thePrimitive World (New YOl'k: Bl'uziller, 1968).5-8, 18 COUl-tesy Rafael Moneo.9 Reprinted from Sir Arthul' Evans, The Palace of Minos atKnossos, Vol. 1 (London: MacMillan & Co., 1921).10 Reprinted from Renata de Fusco, 1l Codice dell'al'chitett't''fa(Naples: Ed. Scientifiche !taliane, 1968).16 Re!)l'intcd from Le C~l'bL~siel' and Pi~l:re Je~nnel'~t, OeuvreCamp ete de 1.910-1929 (Zul"lch: Les EditIOns d ArchitectureErlenbaeh, 1946).17 Repl'inted from Werner Blasel', Mies van del' Rohe (Zul'ich:Vedag fiir Arehitektur, 1965).19,20 Reprinted from Alexander Klein, Das EinJ{unilienhans(Stuttgart: Julius Hoffman Verlag, 1934).21, 25, 29 Reprinted from Cont'l'OspClzio, 9, September 1970.22 Replinted from Nicholas Taylor, Cambridge NewArchiteclu"e (Cambridge, 1964).23 Reprinted from Alvar AaUo l ed. Aarno Ruusuvuori (TheMuseum of Finnish Architecture, 1978).24 Reprinted from Gontmspazio, 10, October 1970.26,27 Reprinted from Demse Scott-Brown, Sleven Izenour,Robert Ventul·i. Lea1'1~ing front Las Vegas (Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press, 1972).28 Replinted from Arquilect1t1'as Bis, 4, November 1974.

45