Abstract
Architectural typology generally involves categorization or grouping of buildings based upon forms or functions. This article present a review on different streams of architectural typology, the canons and schemes of typological classification and the adaptation of the typological methods in daylighting study of buildings. The extensive review on architectural typology serves to forge a general understanding and conception on the contribution of typological method or system in daylighting study especially pertaining to lighting experiments, simulations and identification of conducive models. As a general conclusion, typology is regarded as an essential tool in daylighting study in order to ensure integration of this specialised field into the mainstream architectural knowledge.
Key words: architectural typology, daylighting study, classification method
1. Introduction
Architectural typology generally involves categorization or grouping of buildings based upon either forms or functions. Architects in the past, for example in late eighteenth century, relied upon pattern books and design encyclopaedias to supplement their technical knowledge and allow them to create entire buildings. These pattern books and design encyclopaedias provided a typology of precedents as design guides (Ostwald & Williams, 2008, p. 11). Until now architects have continued to extract lessons from past building typologies in books and magazines to aid architectural design whether in daylighting or other aspects (Baker, Fanchiotti & Steemers, 1993, pp. 11.2-11.3). Daylighting requirements and principles are generative factors behind daylit building types and forms; a relationship which can be understood as a simple cause and effect. Daylighting considerations have inevitably generated daylit building typology endowed with distinctive architectural expressions. How can knowledge about typologies assist in understanding and inquiries into daylighting research? Is it possible to use a typological approach or method in daylighting research? This article is dedicated to answering these questions and attempts to locate discourses in architectural typology theory within the framework of a daylighting study. A review of architectural typology is presented to provide a better understanding of its connection to daylighting research and the potential of adapting typological methods.
2. Definitions of Typology
Typology comes from the English word ‘type’ which in the Cambridge International Dictionary of English is defined as ‘a particular group of people or things which shares similar characteristics and forms a smaller division of a larger set’ (Procter, et al., 1995, p. 1576). ‘Type’ in this sense is associated with categorization based on similarity of traits or characteristics.
The New Encyclopædia Britannica defines typology as,
a system of groupings, usually called types, the members of which are identified by postulating specified attributes that are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive - groupings set up to aid demonstration or inquiry by establishing a limited relationship among phenomena. A type may represent one kind of attribute or several and need include only those features that are significant for the problem at hand (McHenry, 1992, p. 89).
Figure 1 Typological analysis of column bases by John Ruskin in The Stone of Venice (1907, p. 257).
Wojtowicz and Fawcett utilised this definition to differentiate typology from classification by emphasising the former’s role as a system of grouping to facilitate demonstration or investigation by establishing a limited relationship among phenomena. Typology then involves examination of particular aspects of objects in question while classification is seen as a method related to the problem of order (Wojtowicz & Fawcett, 1986, p.24). A typological analysis which exemplifies this definition can be seen in Ruskin’s examination of column bases (Figure 1) in his book, The Stones of Venice (1907). The typological analysis involved examination of spurs on column bases and he demonstrated this by drawing quadrants of the bases within equal size squares regardless of the bases actual dimension (Ruskin, 1907, p. 257). Here, a typology was a system of grouping to aid examination of a single aspect of the variations.
Therefore, typology can be defined in two broad streams; firstly, as a classification based on physical traits, characteristics and functions; secondly, as a grouping technique to facilitate comparison and analysis. Thus, typology operates on two levels - physical, and methodological.
3. Different Streams of Architectural Typology
Kurtović-Folić (1997, p. 474) summarises two approaches to architectural typology; the first concerns features which serve the classification models, and the second approach, concerns an ideal model which “representatively unites important and similar features of all structures”. Gulgonen and Laisney (1982, p. 28) also summarised two major roles of typology in architecture but put it in a slightly different way; the first as analytical tools for understanding contextual, programmatic, formal and spatial qualities of architecture and the second as a conceptual instrument for design.
Bandini (1993, pp. 387-395) describes two streams of architectural typology. The first stream concerns a classification tool for composing schematic architectural objects in the real world. This legacy came from J.N.L. Durand who, adapting theories of taxonomy in natural sciences, proposed an architectural typology of classifiable form and composed from primary building elements which could be combined according to the laws of descriptive geometry. The second stream assigns typology to an ideal role and relates ‘type’ to a mental construct which cannot be embodied in any specific form in the real world. This conception is attributed to Quatremère de Quincy who, following the Neo-Platonic tradition of neo-classicism, defined type as a priori which can be further transformed by architects according to their imagination and requirements of the brief (Bandini, 1993, pp. 387-395).
On a more practical level, Casakin and Dai (2002, p. 4) divide architectural typology into three functions, that of classification system, organisation of knowledge and analysis tool. However, typological classification and organisation could belong to a similar stream as both concern orders.
From architectural literature, three main streams in typology can be surmised. The first concerns classification and organisation, the second as a method of analytical comparison and the third as pure concept or mental construct. The second approach may appear similar to the first, but the distinction has been clearly drawn in the Encyclopaedia of Britannica (McHenry, 1992, p. 89) and by Wojtowicz and Fawcett (1986, p. 24).
Figure 2 Three major streams of architectural typology (Source: Nik Ibrahim, N.L., 2009).
In the light of daylighting study of building, the first and second streams can serve as methods for testing and experimentation and, are therefore, the main concerns of this article.
4. Typology as Classification and Organisational Scheme
Architectural typology as a classification scheme received a major boost in the eighteenth century Europe with the rise of archaeology and expanding exposure to foreign cultures. These two activities provided a mass of disorganised material on building styles prompting establishment of classificatory strategies to organise them for comprehension and obtaining lessons from them (Steadman, 1979, pp. 28-29). This was the beginning of conscious and empirically derived classification in architecture history (Schneekloth & Franck, 1994, pp. 21-22) which soon became available in various treatises.
Typological classification was conceived as organisation of architectural type based on programmatic functions, such as public buildings, residential, commercial, offices, schools and hospitals. It was also presented as an organisational scheme based on formal and spatial attributes (Jormakka, Schürer & Kuhlmann, 2008, pp. 50-56; Gulgonen & Laisney, 1982, pp. 26-28). Therefore, typological classifications in architecture can be divided into two broad schemes; formal (or spatial) and functional.
Figure 3 Two broad classification schemes in architectural typology (Source: Nik Lukman Nik
Ibrahim).
5. Formal and Spatial Typological Classifications
Architectural classifications based on formal characteristics have been conducted at least since the period of Vitruvius, when he described seven major types of temple architecture in De Architectura. He had used the term genus in his classification schemes of buildings based on different kinds of temple plans and elevations as well as various systems of architectural orders (Westfall, 1991, p. 140). The classified temple types ranged from basic plans of (a) in antis, (b) prostyle and (c) amphiprostyle to more complex configurations such as (g) the hypaethral (March, 1998, p. 188).
Figure.4 Typology of temple forms as described in Vitruvius’ architectural treatise are based on formal characteristics (March, 1998, p. 188).
Between 1802 and 1805, Jean Nicholas Louis Durand published a work called Précis des leçons d’architecture données à l’Ecole Polytechnique’ which served as a pattern book, covering every formal aspect of building design (Braham, 1980, pp. 254-255). In this treatise, Durand decomposed buildings into constituent elements and parts. These consisted of porches, stairs, foyers, rooms, galleries, courtyards, etc. (Wojtovicz & Fawcett, 1986, p. 38). These elements and parts could be combined and organised hierarchically by means of geometrical rules, grids, major axes and minor axes to form a whole building (Etlin, 1994, pp. 52-53). Durand introduced for the first time a universal range of standardised building units which could be combined to conceive any type of building (Faurie, Gaines, & Shuttleworth, 2003, pp. 328-330).
In Précis des leçons d’architecture, Durand offered a formal organisational categorisation of building types parallel to the classification of plants and animals in eighteenth century natural sciences by following the natural ‘progression’ from the most primitive type to the more refined versions of the later type. He attempted to create a scientifically valid architectural theory on the basis of scientific methodologies. His classification system was influenced by the botanical taxonomy pioneered by Linnaeus (1707-1778) who made an attempt to bring systematic order to the natural world (Brawne, 2003, pp. 19-21). Durand also adopted Baron Georges Cuvier’s method of classification in natural science which provided him with a model of an organisational scheme that could be elaborated with the help of descriptive geometry. Following the classification scheme of eighteenth century natural science, Durand began with ‘parts’ such as stairs, doors, windows, etc. and then concluded with the larger whole such as buildings or cities with the assemblage of parts into the whole controlled by the regularities of descriptive geometry in the forms of plan, section and elevation (Westfall, 1991, p. 147).
As observed by Oechslin (1986, pp. 46-49), Durand’s typological scheme aimed at generating more complex architectonic configurations where the geometric figures and units correlate to form new fully developed types. Consequently, Durand demonstrated the possibility of using typology as a means of analysis as well as for design generation (Schneekloth & Franck, 1994, pp. 19-20).
6. Functional Typological Classifications
One of the early works on functional typology was produced by Jacques-François Blondel in Cours d’architecture (1771-1777) (Forty, 2004, p. 122) which classified major building types of the period based on their programs and functions such as theatres, halls of festivities, baths and slaughterhouses. To further reinforce the classification scheme he designated an appropriate ‘character’ to each of these building types to reflect its function (Forty, 2004, pp. 122-123). In his conception, different building types or functions could be discernable through their characters achieved by means of architectural designs. For example, civic architecture had to exhibit the qualities of what he termed as “une grande architecture” achieved through grandiose spaces and colossal proportions (Etlin, 1994, pp. 48-49). Blondel distinguished characters for different types of building, such as manly, firm, virile, elegant, rustic, feminine, mysterious, and grand. For example, he assigned manly, firm and virile for military buildings and triumphal arch while feminine to bath and queen’s apartment (Malgrave, 2006, pp. 197-199). Blondel also incorporated in his classification scheme, new building functions in European society such as hospitals, commercial exchanges, barracks, town halls, prisons, and markets (Schneekloth & Franck, 1994, p. 19). Later in 1801, Durand published a book Recueil et Parallèle des édifices de tout genre anciens et modernes or Compendium and Parallel of Ancient and Modern Buildings (Heylighen & Verstijnen, 2003, p. 314) in which he presented classifications of historical buildings based on their general functions such as theatres, stadia, markets, etc.
Typological classification purely based on function can be said to be a relatively new focus in architecture as architects were not normally commissioned to design purely functional buildings in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century. Prior to that period, architects’ major commissions were religious and monumental buildings. Factories for example were not considered as buildings to deserve architects’ attention until the late nineteenth century. Office and other commercial buildings only emerged under an architectural scope of work at the end of nineteenth century (Gutman, 1988, pp. 16-18). Therefore the shift of focus from the symbolic type to the functional type in the twentieth century could also be due to this reason. This means most architects began to classify their work based on functions after this period.
Typological classification of buildings based on function has been continually adopted by later authors in architecture up until the present. In the early Modern period a historical typological classification based on function was demonstrated by Nikolaus Pevsner who presented buildings types ranging from important monuments, government buildings, theatres, libraries, museums, hospitals, hotels, prisons, hotels, banks, warehouses, offices, railway stations, markets, shops and factories. The building types in Pevsner’s selection were rather arbitrary and as pointed out by Teymur (1982, p. 128), it was driven by elitist and ideological concepts and ignored the types of buildings where majority of people live. Pevsner’s typology follows a distinct order. The arrangement of types is from the most important to the least important buildings or in Pevsner’s (1976, pp. 9-10) words “from the most ideal to the most utilitarian, from national monuments to factories”. Pevsner’s historical typology is intended firstly for the study of building styles progression and secondly for the investigation of changes in building function and planning.
The contemporary literature on typology generally follows a similar functional scheme and is concerned primarily with building types based on programmatic functions. Such works include Neufert Architects’ Data (2000) and Building Types Basic Series. The latter consists of book series which cover a range of major building types including office buildings (Kohn & Katz, 2002), health facilities (Kobus, et al., 2000), elementary and secondary schools (Perkins, 2001), museums (Rosenblatt, 2001), hospital facilities (McDonough, et al., 2001), housing (Chandler, et al., 2005) and others. These series are primarily concerned with programmatic planning, circulation, structural system, mechanical system and electrical system of the specific building types. As it was in the past, the building examples presented were selected rather arbitrarily to illustrate a broad range of types. However, classification progression from simple to complex samples was not much accentuated as in the past treatises.
7. Canons of Typological Classification
Decomposition of architectural precedents into basic elements and parts for analysis and comparison is a basic canon of typological procedure. For example, Durand followed a thought process advocated by Descartes in Discours de la méthode (1637) which calls for the division of a problem into smaller units, each to be handled separately (Middleton, 1982, p. 16) and for a progression from the simplest and easiest aspects to the most complex (Etlin, 1994, pp. 52-53). After Durand, typological classification can be summarised into three major canons or tenets.
i) Decomposition of building types into generic forms and elements (which can be reassembled according to a combinatorial rule)
ii) Classification emphasis on progression
iii) Typological variations through transformation and combination
These typological canons have been adopted in the methodology of daylighting experiments and studies such as by Baker, Fanchiotti & Steemers (1993) and Nik Ibrahim, N.L. (2009).
8. First Canon: Decompositions into Generic Forms, Parts and Elements
Argan (1996, p. 244) divides formal architectural typologies into three major categories or areas; whole building configurations, major structural elements and decorative elements. Billing (1993, pp. 63-77) by contrast, examines basic typological forms behind architecture master plans and discovers that building designers largely use simple plan-forms and shapes derived from precedents to create their complex schemes. Decompositional procedure in architectural design is part and parcel of a typological approach that usually involves extraction of previous selected architectural works into basic constituent parts and configurations which could then be integrated differently into new projects. These decomposition procedures normally occur at three typological levels; the overall form, the constituent parts and the basic elements.
Figure 5 Diagram showing three level of typological decomposition - formal, parts and elements
(Source: Nik Ibrahim, N.L., 2009).
Figure 6 (Left) Decomposition into basic volumes to demonstrate configuration orders (Atkinson & Bagenal, 1926, p. 264). (Right) Decomposition into basic plan configurations to demonstrate how different parts relate to each other (Clark & Pause, 2005, p. 253)
Typological decomposition at the overall formal level can be exemplified by the work of Atkinson and Bagenal (1926, p. 264) who extract existing building forms into schematic volumes to study different types of massing. For example, different Elizabethan residences are reduced to basic volumes (or what they term as ‘plastic forms’) to clearly demonstrate their configurational orders. Clark and Pause (2005, p. 253) however, decompose well-known buildings into schematic plan forms in order to examine correlation between different spatial parts (Figure 6).
Examples of typological decomposition of existing architectural precedents into parts and elements are abundant in a book entitled Archetypes in Architecture (Thiis-Evenson, 1987). An example is the decomposition of several window walls into basic constituent elements as shown in Figure 7. Another example of typological decomposition at part and element levels can be seen in Rob Krier’s book, Architectural Composition (1988) which presents the typology of basic architectural elements and their order of organisations. In a section concerning window designs, Krier (1988, pp. 102-105) decomposes historical window designs into basic elemental shapes, consisting of square, triangle and circle to contain the variations. These basic elements could be composed to form different ‘window figures’ or ‘window formats’ which, according to Krier, display aesthetic interdependence.
Figure 7 (Left) Decomposition of basic window elements (Thiis-Evensen, 1987, p. 441). (Right) Krier’s (1988, pp. 103-104) typology of window designs which are composed of basic geometrical forms; the square, the triangle and the circle.
9. Second Canon: Classification Emphasis on Progressions
It is quite typical in the use of architectural typology to adopt classification and organisational schemes which demonstrate progressions from simple to complex forms or functions. An example can be seen in Sir Banister Fletcher’s classification of historical building types proposed as the ‘Tree of Architecture’ in his book, A History of Architecture on the Comparative Method for Students, Craftsman and Amateur in 1901. With this ‘tree’, Fletcher demonstrates chronological progression of historical Western and non-Western architecture based on geography, climate, religion, social system and history (Figure 8) (Gülsüm, 2004, pp. 22-23). The organisational scheme shared a similar concept with the famous biological tree of species by Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) who categorized animal species in branches to indicate development and evolution of the species’ physical characteristics (Bowler, 1992, pp. 327-328). These analogical trees in both architecture and natural science provide examples of a classification scheme or typological arrangement which addresses variations through progression and developments.
Progression from simple to most complex schemes was also adopted by Durand in his classification of historical buildings as well as in his compositional schemes of new buildings (Péréz- Gómez & Pelletier, 1997, pp. 299-305) such as shown in Figure 9.
Figure 8 Analogical trees in architecture (Gülsüm, 2004, p. 23) and natural science (Bowler, 1992, plate 13) which provide typological classification schemes based on progressions and developments (growth).
Figure 9 Principle of architectural composition and combination illustrated by Durand and arranged in progression from simple to complex forms (Péréz-Gómez & Pelletier, 1997, p. 300).
Classification progression can be applied to both formal and functional typologies. The former involves progression from simple to most complex forms and the latter, from least significant to most important functions. For example, Pevsner (1976) presents historical building types as a ‘functional’ progression, from the most utilitarian buildings to the most important monuments. Therefore, as shown in Figure 10, classification progression can apply to both formal and functional types.
Figure 10 Diagram showing the nature of classification progressions for both formal and functional types (Source: Nik Ibrahim, N.L., 2009).
10. Third Canon: Typological Variations through Transformations and Combinations
Wojtowicz and Fawcett (1986, pp. 49-53) cite three principles of typological variations after Durand; i) combination between elements, ii) combination between parts and elements and iii) transformation of details and elements. In the first principle, variations are introduced by combining elements in different configurations with some cases involving new elements being added. The second principle operates at a larger scale, for example variations of a building part (such as a room) can occur by modifying an element or elements which made up the parts, such as changing window sizes and locations, cutting one of its wall in half, etc. In the third principle, transformation can take place by stretching the element, changing its scale, permutations etc. resulting in variations which could still be identifiable from its original. The general form of the element is maintained but its derivatives have gone through ‘shape-shifting’ processes or morphology. These three transformational and combinatorial principles involve gradual changes, which can create very extensive variations (Wojtowicz & Fawcett, 1986, pp. 49-53). However in all variations a single crucial element or framework is maintained.
Typological variations achieved through a combination of elements can be exemplified by Herman Herztberger’s illustrations of different columns and girders joints in the Ministry of Social Welfare and Employment Building (Nakamura, 1991, pp. 142-155). Similar column and girder elements are combined in different configurations to form a consistent typological set (Figure 11, top left). A combination of elements scheme is also adapted by the AIA to demonstrate different sun control devices applied on similar window aperture (Figure 11, top right). Typological variations achieved by combinations of parts and elements can be exemplified by different window shapes and locations on the wall of a similar room configuration (Figure 11, lower row).
Figure 11 (Top row) The first principle of typological variations; (top left) different combinations of elements in this case of column and girder (Nakamura, 1991, p. 142) and (top right) different sun- control devices applied to a similar window aperture (AIA, 1982, p. 11). (Lower row) The second principle of typological variations; combination of part and elements in this case different window patterns are applied to a similar room configuration (CIBSE, 1999, p. 40).
Typological variations achieved by means of transformation can also be called morphology. Goethe who first coined the term ‘morphology’ in an 1817 essay, Zur Naturwissen-schaft überhaupt, besonder zur Morphologie (March & Steadman, 1974, pp. 36-37), defined it as a study of unity of type of organic type. Biologists in the late nineteenth century considered morphology as a detailed study of animal structure aimed at working out relationships (Bowler, 1992, p. 336). An example of a morphological technique can be exemplified by Albrecht Dürer’s geometrical method of drawing
human heads and faces (Figure 12). The grid marks the positions of various features such as brow, eyes, nose, chin, etc and by changing the relative spacing of these lines, various faces could be generated which possess similar structural unity. Therefore similarly in concept, architectural morphology is a general science of possible forms involving a fundamental form which can be transformed by means of a coordinated dimensional change, extensions, deformations, etc. (Steadman, 1983, pp. 1-10). An important fundamental aspect of this typological variation is the perseverance of structural type unity amongst its constituent members. Morphological elements in architecture can involve points, lines, planes and solids in all conceivable forms and these are a kind of geometric alphabets which constitute architectural types (Emmitt, et al., 2004, pp. 95-99).
Figure 12 Interval variations of the superimposed grid, produced different faces as demonstrated by
Dürer in 1528 (Steadman, 1983, p. 6).
A morphological or transformational technique in architecture can be exemplified by Wojtowicz and Fawcett’s (1986, p. 30) extrapolations of three types of skylights designed by Le Corbusier for a chapel in Ronchamp. New vocabularies are generated by a series of three-dimensional coordinated deformations on the three existing types. Within all these variations are structural similarities belonging respectively to the three original types (Figure 13, left).
Figure 13 (Left) Morphological transformations based on the three original types of skylight designs (Wojtowicz & Fawcett, 1986, p. 30). (Right) Transformations achieved by varying the spacing and dimensions of window louvres and the subsequent influence on interior illumination (Robbins, 1986, p. 124).
Figure 14 Typological variations involving transformations and combinations (Source: Nik Ibrahim, N.L., 2009).
In daylighting research such typological variations can be seen in Robbins’ manipulation of daylighting elements for example, light shelves, overhangs and louvres as shown in the Figure 13 (right). The transformations of spacing between louvres and their width are carried out within the constraints of constant window height and louvre shading angle. In this way comparison of daylighting performance is made possible by means of this typological transformation.
As elaborated, typological variations can be achieved through combinations and transformation. Transformation can be associated with morphology, evolution, or ‘deformations’ while combinations with additions of parts and elements. Transformation can occur on single or multiple aspects of the variables while combinations can be produced by joining elements and parts (Figure 14).
11. Typology as an Analytical and Comparative Method
There are instances where typology has been distanced from mere classification. Teymur (1982, pp. 109-110) for example, points out that typology (or typification) is the counterpart of classification. Classification produces classes of reductive and generalised objects while typologies group objects of similar properties according to a criterion that is specified by the problematic of the inquiry. Typologies are analytical tools which allow experimental and scientific studies to tackle specialised objects (Teymur, 1982, pp. 109-110).
Decompositions in architectural work are normally carried out in order to facilitate analysis and comparison. Then a typological system can be used as a comparative framework for recognising similarities between otherwise diverse variations. Typological decomposition abstracts particular features from a set of building types which could be generalised and compared in a standardised way (Schneekloth & Franck, 1994, pp. 21-22). Such a comparative scheme was adopted by Durand in his
1801 Recueil et Parallèle des édifices de tout genre anciens et modernes (Compendium and Parallel of Ancient and Modern Buildings) (Steadman, 1979, pp. 29-31) in which the plans of different historical buildings were drawn to the same scales and arranged like natural history specimens. This book comprises of ninety two comparative plates which could be used to compare particular buildings with the same functional program by their plans, elevations and cross sections (Heylighen & Verstijnen, 2003, p. 314). In this way, only particular aspects of the variations were examined at a time. Such a typology comparative scheme was also demonstrated in John Ruskin’s examination of column bases in The Stones of Venice (Ruskin, 1907). The examination of column base spurs (the single aspect of variation) was conducted by drawing quadrants of the bases within equal size squares irrespective of the bases actual dimension (see Figure 1).
Figure 15 (Left) Single aspect analysis by Serlio involving only the cornices detailing on the building façade highlights otherwise subtle differences (Serlio, S., 1982, Folio 35). (Right) Typological drawings of architectural mouldings from The American Vignola (Ware, 1920, p. 3).
Another early typological work which adopted such comparative scheme was Sabastiano Serlio’s analysis of Roman cornices details on a façade involving minute differences (Serlio, 1982, Folio 35). The typological framework involved examination of only a single aspect of the subject – in this case the cornices on the façade. A similar comparative framework was used in the examination of architectural mouldings in the American Vignola produced by W.R. Ware (1920, p. 3). The illustrated table presented a typology of generic moulding types - ovolo, cavetto, cyma recta and cyma reversa. The table helped recognition of a transformational type for example the beak moulding which was formed by combining two generic types, ovolo and cavetto executed at an angle. The illustrated typological table helps in analyzing similarities which may not be obvious otherwise (Figure 15).
A similar method of typological analysis has also been frequently adapted in daylighting study. For example, typological comparisons of daylight distributions and levels inside rooms with different openings of identical size are common such as shown in the Figure 16. Typological comparisons of different apertures in terms of daylighting performance are facilitated by keeping similar opening size across all variables.
Figure 16 Analysis of daylighting performance of different apertures. The constant aperture size across all variables defines the typology (Daniels, 2003, p. 448).
Such an approach as above has been used by Diepens, Bakker, and Zonneveldt (2000) at the TNO-TUE Centre for Building Research to study daylighting performance of different aperture designs using Radiance software (Figure 17). Typological frames were implied by restricting the room to typical office space configurations of 3.6 m width, 5.4 m depth and 2.7 m height as well as a 10% window area to floor area ratio. Another typological frame adapted is that of standard surface reflectances 0.7 for walls, 0.8 for ceiling and 0.2 for floor (Diepens, J., Bakker, F. and Zonneveldt, L., 2000). Another example of this typological approach in daylighting was the simulations conducted by Hastings and Junghans using Radiance on a reference room, 3 m width, 5 m depth and 2.5 m height with a 20% window to floor area but having different configurations (Hastings & Wall, 2007, pp. 22- 24) (Figure 18).
Figure 17 A typological analysis of daylighting performance on a comparative basis based on similar room configurations (Diepens, Bakker, & Zonneveldt, 2000).
Figure 18 A typological analysis of daylighting performance on a comparative basis based on similar room configurations (Hastings & Wall, 2007, p. 23).
This typological analysis has its roots in natural history classification in which case organisms were arranged into groups whose members shared similar characteristics. Classification into groups based on mutual similarity is the basis of present day taxonomy or the science of biological classification (Willey, et al., 2008, pp. 477-478). Such a classification procedure is called a System and is used to classify plants and animal species. Foucault (1970, p. 139) described the System as “that of selecting a finite and relatively limited group of characteristics, whose variations and constants may be studied in any individual entity that presents itself”. Foucault goes on to describe in detail this analytical procedure in natural history which, according to him, fundamentally involves two major activities for relative comparisons; designation and derivations (Foucault, 1970, pp. 138-145). In the previous example (Figure 16), the identical size (room and aperture) is a designation which defines this typological group (hence comparison is made possible), while the different type apertures are its typological derivations.
12. Typology in Sustainable and Daylighting Design
Daylit building types represent only a subset of general building types. Certainly not all building can be considered as a daylit type and daylit building types could be considered as part of sustainable building typology. Rayner Banham in his book, The Architecture of the Well-tempered Environment proposed three broad building categories based on the ‘modes’ of environmental control; the ‘conservative’, the ‘selective’ and the ‘regenerative’ (Banham, 1984, pp. 18-28). Borrowing from Banham’s classification, Hawkes (2006, pp. 30-32) proposed three broad architectural categories also based upon their modes of environmental control; the ‘exclusive’, the ‘pragmatic’ and the ‘selective’. These categories can be considered as three major typologies in architecture which serve to differentiate climate responsive building (‘selective’), climate rejecting building (‘exclusive’) and a mix between the two (‘pragmatic’).
Figure 19 (Left) Three environmental magnets which define Hawkes’ major building typologies (Hawkes, 2006, p. 31). (Right) Environmental building typologies based on Hawkes’ three magnets of environment showing subsequent break down of environmental strategies (Source: Nik Ibrahim, N.L.,
2009).
From the ‘selective building’ type subsequent sub-categories can be formed which lead to daylighting types (Figure 19). Since a ‘selective’ mode building usually includes other environmental strategies, such as natural ventilation, passive heating or cooling and photovoltaic integration - a daylit building type is not normally conceived in isolation.
13 Environmental and Performance Typology
Daylighting typology can be grouped under the environmental and performance typology. Environmental typology refers to a classification based on environmental context and orientations. In a book entitled The Selective Environment, Hawkes, McDonald and Steemers (2002, pp. 49-58) demonstrate how a typological approach can be used to establish certain fundamental parameters of environmental response. Taxonomies are based on the building’s geographic location and various room orientations within the building’s overall configuration. In the example used by Hawkes et al., the sampled typology is made up of rooms inside two generic buildings located in two geographical locations (Lagos and London). Each room, although similar in physical parameters is differentiated primarily by its location within the building’s overall configuration and its orientations to the external environment; whether its window façade is facing North, South, East or West (Hawkes, McDonald & Steemers, 2002, pp. 49-58). Although the proposed model typology refers mainly to energy performance, the concept is also applicable in daylighting study and taxonomies of daylit spaces which can be determined by different environmental exposure.
Performance typology refers to taxonomies defined by energy and daylighting performances embodied by different architectural shapes. Such typologies have been demonstrated by numerous authors in daylighting literature such as Lam, Robbins and Carmody et al. (2004, pp. 160-164), based on various types of window and room configurations. For example, Carmody provides performance graphs in daylighting which show the relationship between average illuminance and various room parameters, however the performance typology provided is not wide ranging. A window typology is limited to a few major types for examples window to wall area ratio of 0.15, 0.3, 0.45 and 0.6 each of which has several subtypes of different glazing transmittance and layers.
Environmental typology and performance typology can be considered as synonymous. Also similar in conception is the ‘typological set solution’ in energy conservation offered by Hyde et al. (2008, pp. 232-234) which consists of the specified forms, materials, systems and orientations for a specific subtropical climate (in this case, Brisbane). The proposed ‘typological set solution’ consists of components, both at building and environmental levels.
14. Daylighting Typology: Baker’s Morphological Box
In daylighting, Baker, Fanchiotti and Steemers (1993, pp. 11.2-11.7) developed a morphological box for decomposing daylit buildings in the same manner as Durand. Baker et al. recognise the interdependence of various elements towards daylighting performance which can occur at room, building and site levels (Figure 20). The typological classification therefore acknowledges correlations between elements at different levels and shares similarity with Cuvier’s classification (1798) in its consciousness towards the holistic functional systems (Baker, et al., 1993, pp. 11.2-11.7).
Figure 20 Daylighting typology at room level, building level and town-planning level (Baker, Fanchiotti & Steemers, 1993, pp. 11.6-11.7).
Figure 21 Morphological boxes for BRF Headquarters, Denmark (left) and Conphoebus Laboratory, Italy (Baker, Fanchiotti & Steemers, 1993, pp. 11.9, 11.13) allow typological comparisons between daylit buildings and their constituent parts.
The morphological box (Figure 21), or typological arrangement, begins with basic room parameters and then progresses to a building and then to larger site levels. This ‘progression’ is akin to the classification approach of the eighteenth century natural history which was later adopted by Durand in his typological series. Parametric elements organised under subcategory levels in the morphological box allow existing daylit buildings to be decomposed into individual components and parts in the manner of Durand. However, instead of relying solely on line drawings, Baker, Fanchiotti and Steemers (1993, pp. 11.3-11.15) provide indicators in the form of graphs to chart typological variations of elements in the sampled daylit buildings. The morphological box plays similar role as Durand’s sets of drawings that of providing transformational and combinatorial guide in designing new daylit buildings. Similar to Durand’s compositional technique, Baker’s morphological box is intended for ease of comparison and design production.
15. The Role of Typology in Daylighting Study
Typology can be a valuable concept and tool in a daylighting research and study for two main reasons; first, as a tool for categorizing daylighting performances of different room, building and environmental types and second for analysing and comparing them.
By means of typological method, daylighting principles or parameters can be scientifically examined and tested. Typological parameters in daylighting study can be both physical and non-physical. Architectural elements and subsystems may perform a variety of physical, and functional roles. It follows that typology can be defined not only in terms of formal characteristics, but also in terms of function (Mitchell, 1990, p. 203). The idea of typology is then extendable beyond physical parameters to include performance criteria such as sky types, latitude angles and orientations. This idea has been elaborated by Hawkes, McDonald and Steemers (2002, pp. 52-58) who presented ‘typological models’ based on conditions of space and its location within the overall configuration of building and external exposure. Therefore, typology is a potential method for testing wide range of daylighting parameters.
Typology, according to Casakin and Dai (2002, pp. 3-5), is useful for representing knowledge during a schematic and conceptual design stage as it helps to clarify the ill-defined structure of design problems. Typology offers the possibility of translating the results of technically-based research into a form that renders them accessible to designers. A typological method in daylighting design can provide means of using precedents which according to Steemers (1988, p. 266) cannot be easily replaced by scientific theories as the nature of design relies heavily upon experience.
16. Defining Methodology for Daylighting Typological Study
Teymur (1982, pp. 109-110) highlights that in environmental discourse, typologies are dictated by ideological, institutional or personal requirements rather than by theoretical or technical ones. Therefore typologies could be defined differently given different field of study or problems. Mitchell (1990, p. 94) has also arrived at a similar general conclusion that the essence of an architectural typology is a matter of convention. Architects could dictate a typology by formally stating an explicit definition. As an analogy from the natural science, Mitchell quotes what Locke posited that the “boundaries of species are as men, and not as nature, make them”. Therefore, the typological system or method to be adapted for daylighting study should be defined specifically for this field.
In general, typological frameworks for daylighting study can be divided into two broad levels or categories; the internal and external parameters. The first or internal level will involve immediate room parameters such as window head height, window size, room length, ceiling height and surface reflectance. The second or external level will concern outdoor parameters and contextual conditions such as external obstructions, orientations, geographical locations and sky types (Nik Ibrahim, N.L., 2009). The second level relates to the environmental typology as defined by Hawkes et al. (2002, pp. 49-58). Another important aspect of daylighting study typological system is that examination has to be limited to one or two particular aspects at a time in a particular typological group or set.
17. Conclusions
From the literature review, architectural typology can be divided into two major functions; as classification and analysis tools. In daylighting study, these two broad functions of typology present potentials in analysing daylighting performances of building in relation to its external conditions or context. There are instances in daylighting literatures where typological methods are utilised or adapted to compare daylighting performances (Daniels, 2003, p. 448; Diepens, et al., 2000; Baker & Steemers, 2002, p. 67; Hasting & Wall, 2007, p. 23). Based on these examples and others from the general architectural stream; typological methods can be regarded as an essential tool in daylighting study and experimentation especially when it concerns the impacts of varying parameters on daylighting performances. The use of typological methods in daylighting study can also help to ensure integration of this specialised knowledge into mainstream architectural field.
References
[1] Alexander, C. (1979). The Timeless Way of Building, New York: Oxford University Press.
[2] Argan, G.C. (1996). On the Typology of Architecture. In K. Nesbitt (Ed.), Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995 (pp. 242-246). New York: Princeton Architectural Press. (Original work published December 1963 in Architectural Design, No. 33).
[3] Atkinson, R. & Bagenal, H. (1926). Theory and Elements of Architecture. London: Ernest
Benn.
[4] Baker, N., Fanchiotti, A. & Steemers, K. (1993). Daylighting in Architecture: a European
Reference Book. London: James & James (Science Publishers).
[5] Baker, N. & Steemers, K. (2002). Daylight Design of Buildings. London: James & James
(Science Publishers).
[6] Bandini, M. (1993). Typological Theories in Architectural Design. In B. Farmer & H. Louw (Eds.), Companion to Contemporary Architectural Thought (pp.387-395). London & New York: Routledge.
[7] Banham, R. (1984). The Architecture of the Well-Tempered Environment (2nd edition).
London: Architectural Press.
[8] Bansal, N.K., Hauser, G., & Minke, G. (1994). Passive Building Design: A Handbook of
Natural Climatic Control. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.
[9] Billing, K. (1993). Master Planning for Architecture: Theory and Practice of Designing
Building Complexes as Development Frameworks. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. [10] Bowler, P.J. (1992). The Environmental Sciences. London: Fontano Press.
[11] Braham, A. (1980). The Architecture of the French Enlightenment. London: Thames & Hudson.
[12] Brawne, M. (2003). The Design Process and the Expectant Eye. Oxford: Architectural Press / Elsevier.
[13] Casakin, H. and Dai, W. (2002). Visual Typology in Design: A Computational View.
Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing (Vol.16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[14] CIBSE (1999). Lighting Guide LG10: Daylighting and Window Design. London: The
Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers.
[15] Clark, R.H. and Pause, M. (2005). Precedents in Architecture: Analytical Diagrams, Formative Ideas, and Partis (3rd edition). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
[16] Carmody, J., Selkowitz, S., Lee, E.S., Arasteh, D, & Willmert, T. (2004). Window Systems for
High-Performance Buildings. New York: W.W. Norton.
[17] Chandler, R., et al. (2005). Building Type Basics for Housing. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.
[18] C.M. Lee, C. (2007). Projective Series. In C.C.M. Lee and S. Jacoby (Eds.), Typological Formations: Renewable Building Types and the City (pp.136-147). London: Architectural Association Publications.
[19] Colquhoun, A. (1996). Typology and Design Method. In K. Nesbitt (Ed.), Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995 (pp. 248-250-257). New York: Princeton Architectural Press. (Original work published in Arena 83, June 1967)
[20] Curl, J.S. (1999). A Dictionary of Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[21] Daniels, Klaus (2003). Chapter 10: Daylighting. Advanced Building Systems: A Technical Guide for Architects and Engineers (E. Schwaiger, Trans.) (pp.444-460). Basel: Birkhäuser – Publisher for Architecture.
[22] Diepens, J, Bakker, F. and Zonneveldt, L. (2000). Daylighting Design Variations Book. TNO- TUE Centre for Building Research. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://sts.bwk.tue.nl/daylight/varbook/index.htm
[23] Egan, D. (2003). Aristotle’s Ethics (Nicomachean Ethics). New York: Spark Publishing.
[24] Emmitt, S., Olie, J. and Schmid, P. (2004). Principles of Architectural Detailing. Oxford: Blackwell.
[25] Etlin, R.A. (1994). Symbolic Space: French Enlightenment Architecture and Its Legacy.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[26] Fontoynont, M. (Ed.) (1999). Daylight Performance of buildings. London: James & James
(Science Publishers)
[27] Forty, A. (2004). Words and Buildings: a Vocabulary of Modern Architecture. London: Thames & Hudson.
[28] Foucault, M. (1970). The Order of Things: an Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Tavistock Publications.
[29] Gibbs, J. (1968). A Book of Architecture, Containing Designs of Buildings and Ornaments.
New York: B. Blom. (Originally published in 1782).
[30] Gropius, W. (1956). The Scope of Total Architecture. London: George Allen & Unwin.
[31] Gulgonen, A. and Laisney, F. (1982). Contextual Approaches to Typology at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. Journal of Architectural Education (Vol.35, No.2). Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture.
[32] Gülsüm, B. (2004, May). The Cultural Burden of Architecture. Journal of Architectural
Education (Vol. 57, Issue 4). Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture.
[33] Gupta, V. (1987). Thermal Efficiency of Building Clusters: An Index for Non Air- Conditioned Buildings in Hot Climates. In D. Hawkes, J. Owers, P. Rickaby and P. Steadman (Eds.), Energy and Urban Built Form. London: The Open University / The Martin Centre for Architectural and Urban Studies.
[34] Gutman, R. (1988). Architectural Practice: A Critical View. New York: Princeton
Architectural Press.
[35] Hart, V. (1998). Introduction: ‘Paper Palaces’ from Alberti to Scamozzi. In V. Hart and P.
Hicks (Eds.), Paper Palaces: The Rise of the Renaissance Architectural Treatise. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
[36] Hastings, S.R. and Wall, M. (Eds.) (2007). Sustainable Solar Housing: Volume 1 -Strategies and Solutions. London: Earthscan.
[37] Hawkes, D. (1996). The Environmental Tradition: Studies in the Architecture of Environment, London: E & FN Spon.
[38] Hawkes, D. (2001). Beyond the Environmental Tradition: Lessons from the Past for Architecture of the Future. In R. Spence, S. MacMillan and P. Kirby (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Design in Practice. London: Thomas Telford Publishing.
[39] Hawkes, D. (2006). The Selective Environment: Environmental Design and Cultural Identity.
In J.H. Bay and B.L. Ong (Eds.), Tropical Sustainable Architecture: Social and
Environmental Dimensions. Oxford: Architectural Press / Elsevier.
[40] Hawkes, D. and Baker, N. (1987). Glazed Courtyards: An Element of the Low-Energy City. In D. Hawkes, J. Owers, P. Rickaby and P. Steadman (Eds.), Energy and Urban Built Form. London: The Open University / The Martin Centre for Architectural & Urban Studies.
[41] Hawkes, D., McDonald, J. & Steemers, K. (2002). The Selective Environment (pp.49-58).
London & New York: Spon Press.
[42] Hyde, R., Watson, L., Khoo, K., Lester, N. and Kelder, J. (2008). Brisbane: A Subtropical Climate. In R. Hyde (Ed.), Bioclimatic Housing: Innovative Designs for Warm Climates. London: Earthscan.
[43] Jacoby, S. (2007). What’s Your Type? In C.C.M. Lee and S. Jacoby (Eds.), Typological Formations: Renewable Building Types and the City (pp.148-156). London: Architectural Association (AA) Publications.
[44] Johnson, P.A. (1994). The Theory of Architecture: Concepts Themes & Practices. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
[45] Jormakka, K., Schürer, O., and Kuhlmann, D. (2008). Basic Design Methods. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag AG.
[46] Kobus, R.L., et al., (2000). Building Type Basics for Healthcare Facilities, New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
[47] Kohn, A.E. and Katz, P. (2002). Building Type Basics for Office Buildings. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
[48] Krier, R.(1988). Architectural Composition. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc.
[49] Kurtović-Folić, N.(1997). Triconch - Its Origin and Place in the Development of Architectural Forms. The Scientific Journal FACTA UNIVERSITATIS: Architecture and Civil Engineering (Vol.1, No.4).
[50] Lee, D. (Trans.). (1965). Plato: Timaeus and Critias. Middlesex: Penguin Books.
[51] March, L. (1998). Architectonics of Humanism: Essays on Number in Architecture. Chicester: Academy Editions.
[52] March, L. and Steadman, P. (1971). The Geometry of Environment. London: RIBA Publications.
[53] Mark, R. (1990). Light, Wind and Structure, Massachusetts Institute of technology / MIT: Massachusetts.
[54] McDonough, B., et al. (2001). Building Type Basics for Hospital Facilities. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
[55] McHenry, R. (1992). The New Encyclopædia Britannica (Vol.12, 15th edition). Chicago: Encylopædia Britannica.
[56] Nakamura, T. (1991). A + U: Herman Herztberger. Tokyo: a + u Publishing.
[57] Neufert, E. & P. (2000). Architects’ Data (3rd edition). Malden: Blackwell Science Publishers. [58] Nik Ibrahim, N.L. (2009). Daylighting Rule of Thumb and Typology (PhD Thesis). University
of Sydney.
[59] Ostwald, M.J. & Williams, A. (2008). Understanding Architectural Education in AUSTRALASIA: An Analysis of Architectural Schools, Programs, Academics and Students (Vol. 1). Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
[60] Péréz-Gómez, A. & Pelletier, L. (1997). Architectural Representation and the Perspective
Hinge. Cambridge, MA & London: The MIT Press.
[61] Perkins, L.B., et al. (2001). Building Type Basics for Elementary and Secondary Schools. New
York & Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
[62] Pevsner, N. (1976). A History of Building Types. London: Thames & Hudson.
[63] Porter, T. (2004). ARCHISPEAK: an Illustrated Guide to Architectural terms. London & New
York: Spon Press.
[64] Procter, P., et al. (Eds.) (1995). Cambridge International Dictionary of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[65] Quatremère De Quincy, A.C. (1977). Type. In A. Vidler (Ed.), Oppositions 8. New York: The
MIT Press.
[66] Robbins, C.L (1986). Daylighting: Design and Analysis. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. [67] Rosenblatt, A. (2001). Building Type Basics for Museums. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
[68] Rossi, A. (1985). The Architecture of the City (D. Ghirardo and J. Ockman, Trans.).
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[69] Ruskin, J. (1907). The Stone of Venice. London: J.M.Dent & Sons.
[70] Schneekloth, L. H. and Franck, K. A. (1994). Type: Prison or Promise? In K.A. Franck and L.H. Schneekloth (Eds.) Ordering Space: Types in Architecture and Design (pp.15-38). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
[71] Serlio, S. (1982). The Five Books of Architecture. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. (Original work published in 1611).
[72] Sheppard, R. & Wright, H. (1948). Building for Daylight. London: George Allen & Unwin. [73] Steadman, P. (1979). The Evolution of Designs: Biological Analogy in Architecture and the
Applied Arts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[74] Stein, R.G. (1977). Architecture and Energy. New York: Anchor Press.
[75] Steemers, K. (1988, July). Daylighting in Art Gallery. In E.D.O. Fernandes & Yannas, S. (Eds.), Energy and Buildings for Temperate Climates: Proceedings of the 6th International PLEA Conference (pp.261-266). Oxford & New York: Pergamon Press & The International PLEA Organisation.
[76] Stevens, G. (1988). The Reasoning Architect (3rd edition). Sydney: The University of Sydney.
[77] Stevens, G. (1990). The Reasoning Architect: Mathematics and Science in Design. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing.
[78] Teymur, N. (1982). Environmental Discourse: A Critical Analysis of ‘Environmentalism’ in Architecture, Planning, Design, Ecology, Social Sciences and the Media. London: Question Press / Blackwell Press.
[79] Thiis-Evenson, T. (1987). Archetypes in Architecture. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.
[80] Vidler, A. (1977). The Idea of Type: The Transformation of the Academic Ideal, 1750-1830.
Oppositions 8. New York: The MIT Press.
[81] Vidler, A. (1987). The Writing of the Walls: Architectural Theory in the Late Enlightenment .
Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press.
[82] Von Meiss, P. (1991). Elements of Architecture: From Form to Place. London: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
[83] Ware, W.R. (1920). The American Vignola (Part 1): The Five Orders (5th edition). Scranton: International Textbook Company.
[84] Webber, P. (2008, April). Outside In: The Forgotten Model of the European Square.
Architectural Theory Review. Sydney: The University of Sydney.
[85] Willey, J.M., Sherwood, L.M., Woolverton, C.J. (2008). Prescott, Harley & Klein’s
Microbiology (7th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
[86] Wojtowicz, J. & Fawcett, W. (1986). Architecture: Formal Approach. London & New York: Academy Editions & St. Martin’s Press.
