TypologiesSchools often have fairly consistent typologies – in fact, I would suggest that any larger buildings constructed of smaller units follow similar typologies (from schools, to labs, to housing).  This helps to build a working language (Bar, Finger, Block) to understand particular design approaches, their assets, and importantly their limits.   A critical aspect to consider is that these typologies derive from access to daylight and cross ventilation such that the initial formal decisions, when coupled with orientation, immediately begin to address sustainability and the environment.  No gadgets required.

Basic working dimensions can be seen if we look in section, and how deep daylight can penetrate into a space:DaylightSection

From this we can begin to develop some “what-if” scenarios estimating the height of daylight penetration and the corresponding viable depth.  So for example, if we have window height of 9′ (fairly high btw), we then have a 22′-6″ depth of penetration.  If we then assume additional width for circulation, if a stark minimum of 8′, we arrive at a rough width of 34′ or so for a single loaded corridor, or about 55′ for a double loaded corridor (keep in mind what the interior corridor experience is like here!  not good!).  This doesn’t make great architecture, it does provide a place to start, and a basis to begin to consider daylight at the earliest phases of design.

Keep in mind that daylight has been proven to effect academic performance in schools.

At the same time, typologies develop from certain working assumptions, such as the expectation of a corridor in the example above.  And yet, I have already pointed to an educator who suggests corridors should be seen as obsolete in schools of the 21st Century!   When we develop an understanding of why things are the way they are, we can also stand on firm ground to challenge them.  And this is where I think most students find working with “typology” to be a buzz kill.

I believe the misunderstanding of typology stems from two things:

Understanding Typological vs Topological Transformations

Typological transformations develop their meaning from categorical differences – differences in kind.

Topological transformations develop from continuous variation or gradients – differences in degree.

Importantly, these approaches are not in conflict with each other.   The tension with typology, is when they are misunderstood as the rule, a fixed set, rather than as a working abstraction to understand assets and limitations. This brings us to:

The Typologists Error

“The typologists error” is part of the chapter Common Errors to Avoid in Resier + Umemoto’s Atlas of Novel Tectonics.  They simply quote Manual Delanda, from his Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy, who in turn is citing biologist Ernst Mayer:

For the typologist the type (eidos) is real and the variation an illusion, while for the populationist, the type (the average) is an abstraction and only the variation is real.  No two ways of looking at nature could be more different.

Our use of typology is an abstraction – from the abstraction we can develop general principles, but it is not the design!

In my inbox today, I happened to get an update on Architecture Record’s Schools of the 21st Century, featuring a new school by  Behnisch Architekten and their design for Ergolding Secondary School.  Note how the ground floor, is in essence a finger scheme, with the upper floors are a bar scheme, with the central atrium and circulation as a kind of sectional pin linking the two.  Note this as these two plans cycle back and forth:

ErgoldingPlans

So is this good? Am I saying this is the solution?  No.  But if you begin to understand why it is, you can begin to critique it.