The Journal of Architecture

ISSN: 1360-2365 (Print) 1466-4410 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjar20

Building Types and Built Forms

Pavlos Philippou

To cite this article: Pavlos Philippou (2015) Building Types and Built Forms, The Journal of
Architecture, 20:6, 1127-1138, DOI: 10.1080/13602365.2015.1116880

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2015.1116880

Published online: 22 Jan 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 74

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjar20

Download by: [Aiswarya Baburaj] Date: 05 June 2016, At: 23:57


Downloaded by [Aiswarya Baburaj] at 23:57 05 June 2016
Building Types and Built Forms
By Philip Steadman
Matador, 2014
ISBN: 978-1783062-591.
Hb, $25, pp. 424, with illustrations
One of the paradoxes that has characterised the field
of architecture in the past several decades is the dis-
parity of aspiration between design experimentation
and theoretical reflection. Formulated differently,
there is an incongruity between ever-shifting
design explorations and the stasis evident in how
the field analyses and classifies its accumulated
material. This paradox is evident, for example, in
the literature investigating projects that fall within
the so-called Post-Modern, neo-Avant-Garde degree of generalisation that oscillates from the
and Parametricist dispositions, where the then-
latest design approachsay, direct references to
architectures traditions in the 1980s, or intricate
geometrical manipulation (such as folding) in the
1990s, or parametric digital modelling (and script-
ing) more recentlyis regularly presented as the
latest (global) style or the (great) new style after
modernism. In other words, and apart from the
possible legitimacy of these design explorations, by
deploying the discursively imprecise category of
style, there is an insistence upon remaining intellec-
tually rooted in a mode of reflective judgement pre-
dominantly theorised in the nineteenth century. In
this light, it is hardly surprising that many books
charting the history of architecture are periodically
re-published as expanded editions, whose evident
difference from the previous iteration is an
# 2015 Pavlos Philippou
1127
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 20
Number 6
additional chapter at the end, extending the story-
line to encompass the next wave of formal inno-
vations.1
Even a casual survey of the recent historiography
of architecture will attest that there are still two
dominant modes of addressing the fields sedimen-
ted richness: either as an historical narrative of
linear development or an essentialist succession of
diverse styles.2 And while these two are distinct,
they are not totally unrelated. For all the theoretical
limitations of these two intellectual dispositions, like
those elucidated in Michel Foucaults The Archaeol-
ogy of Knowledge,3 their obvious advantage is a
robust capacity to sift and classify a multitude of
material. Yet, their derivative intellectual price, as
Foucault eloquently forewarns, is an inescapable
inexact to the unsubstantiated. Indeed, the work
of a number of key theorists and historians of the
fieldsuch as: Robin Evans, Colin Rowe, Aldo
Rossi and Alan Colquhountestifies to the same
conclusion, as well as to the fact that there is no
need to pursue this argument in philosophical
terms. But if style is inadequate to guide our reflec-
tive judgement in architecture, what is the alterna-
tive? One would expect that Philip Steadmans
reply, considering his latest bookappropriately
entitled Building Types and Built Formswould
be typo-morphology.
Typo-morphology brings together and produc-
tively cross-fertilises the close analysis of urban
form, morphology, with the problematisation of
spatial and organisational specificity, which is typol-
ogy. An objection here might be whether type
1360-2365 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2015.1116880
 1128
Book, exhibition and
film reviews
adheres to the same (reductive) theoretical universe
Downloaded by [Aiswarya Baburaj] at 23:57 05 June 2016
as style, or if it manages to surpass these limitations
and operate as a proper generative force amidst
deep-seated complexity. Simply put, the reply is sim-
ultaneously yes and no. The answer is affirmative if
the matter is examined superficially; especially taking
into consideration the fact that type in architecture
was historically advanced in tandem with the
notion of style. In that context, type was generally
developed to facilitate the search for timeless
origins or to provide a stable matrix of planimetric
reasoning, or even both.4 Unfortunately, a similar
view also characterises the dominant understanding
of type when the notion resurfaced in the 1960s.5
On the other hand, the alternative and currently
emerging conception of type, which is informed by
the concept of the diagram (as we will see in what
follows), has purged itself of the philosophy of
essences, and the limitations that philosophy
entails. But to substantiate this claim, we need first
to delve a bit further into Steadmans book.
In fact the author sees his latest offering as two
books woven into one another in alternating chap-
ters, one documenting the history of what he, rather
inaccurately, calls building types, the other tracing
the development of their morphological articulation.
The designation of building types is inaccurate
since the author does not avoid the pitfalls of a
long-standing pattern of architectural thinking,
whereby type is confused with genre: as, for
instance, in Nikolaus Pevsners influential A History
of Building Types (1976).6 The distinction between
these two terms, or more precisely the lack of it,
causes considerable confusion to the point where
both notions have somewhat lost their specificity
and are widely used interchangeably. To clarify
with an example: the term hospital indicates a
genre of buildings pertaining to a regime of particu-
lar functional accommodation (in this case, a specific
institutionalisation of healthcare and medical prac-
tices), whereas that of the pavilion hospital desig-
nates a particular spectrum of typological
possibility, as Steadman carefully elaborates in
Chapter 3. In this sense, nineteenth-century pavilion
hospitals are typologically closer to early twentieth-
century pavilion schools, rather than to contempor-
ary high-rise hospitals (with which they share the
same use): as intriguingly discussed in Chapter 5
(pp. 147152). The same point is also registered,
and in equally explicit terms, in the comparison
(pp. 379382) between Edmund du Canes Worm-
wood Scrubs Prison (187491) and Douglas
Galtons Herbert Hospital, completed a decade
earlier (figs 1, 2). Evidently the programmatic acti-
vation of spaces is interrelated with the horizon of
typological possibility, but to confuse genre with
type seems to stem from Modernisms overt incli-
nation to handle formal problems through func-
tional concerns.
Surprisingly, Steadman mostly understands type
in this way, deploying the term in the most straight-
forward of senses, to mean a classificatory unit by
which similar buildings can be grouped and enumer-
ated. Thus type is understood by the author as a
neutral means of description without normative,
idealising or instrumental overtones, and with a
focus on the material and geometrical character of
buildings themselves (p. 353). For this to be the
case, type cannot be considerably morebut not
anything lessthan a spatial abstraction of organis-
 1129

The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 20
Number 6

Figure 1. Wormwood
Downloaded by [Aiswarya Baburaj] at 23:57 05 June 2016

Scrubs Prison (Architect:

Edmund du Cane,
London, 187491) was
considered exemplary in
the development of the
telegraph pole (later
telephone pole) type.

Figure 2. Herbert
Hospital (Architect:
Douglas Galton,
Woolwich, London,
1865), constructed a
decade earlier than
Wormwood Scrubs
Prison, exhibits
significant typological
commonalities with that
preceding case despite
the difference of genre.

ational relationships at a schematic level, enabling

the understanding of any case as concurrently part respectively chapters 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9whilst the his-
of a group (or series) as well as an individual instance torical outlook is between 1800 to 1930 within the
therein. Notwithstanding this divergence in the con- geographical context of France, the United States
ception of type, it is still reasonable that the first and Britain. From these fascinating chapters, it is
book in Steadmans manuscript, pursued in the clear that the author is well aware that similarities
odd-numbered chapters, chronicles the histories of of usewhich bring together the case studies in
selected building genres at critical temporal junc- each of these chapterscannot provide a profound
tures. Specifically, the selected genres are: basis for architectural reflection, whether the inter-
Housing, Hospitals, Schools, Towers and Prisons ests are those of the historian-researcher or the
 1130
Book, exhibition and
film reviews
designer-practitioner. To compensate for this
Downloaded by [Aiswarya Baburaj] at 23:57 05 June 2016
deficiency, the notion of built form is introduced,
extending the earlier research of Lionel March (con-
ducted both independently and in collaboration with
Leslie Martin).
Accordingly, Steadman argues that buildings can
be generally grouped and studied in two ways:
either based on similarities in their use (which, as
we have seen, he terms building types), or based
on similarities of their morphology (which he calls
built forms). Based on the conjecture that these
two kinds of classifications resourcefully intermingle,
it is a small step to the decision to organise the
manuscript in alternating chapters, enabling the
even-numbered chapters to broaden and deepen
the investigations of the odd-numbered ones. Con-
sequently, chapters 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 discuss in
some detail the complex ways through which basic
functional demandssuch as the provision of
natural ventilation, efficient access and direct sun-
lightinfluenced the horizon of typological possi-
bility in the examined genres. It follows that in
these even-numbered chapters, the analysis is
directed toward the buildings overall massing and
general configuration, rather than to the particulars
of materials, detailing, construction or experience.
Over and above these ten chapters, the manuscript
commences with a concise, albeit rich, introduction
that identifies the substantive area to be surveyed,
while it terminates with two concluding chapters:
one for each book. Hence, Chapter 11 compiles
material from all the odd-numbered chapters to
speculate on how building genres can be described
and classified, as well as how they mutateor
even transformover time. Lastly, Chapter 12
assembles the diverse lines of investigation of the
even-numbered chapters to deliberate on the
notion of possibility in built form: whether con-
ditioned by spatial constraints (such as those
imposed by geometry and topology), or whether his-
torically contingent (such as those imposed by tech-
nical inventions, technological developments or
social changes).
In terms of its qualities as a scholarly output,
Steadmans manuscript is commendable on several
levels. First, it reads as the patient outcome of
many years of research, rather than being an expedi-
ent run-of-the-mill book aspiring to fulfil the insti-
tutional demands of contemporary academia.
Secondly, and quite originally, the text is
accompanied both by footnotes and endnotes,
which unambiguously distinguish necessary expla-
natory information (easily accessible as footnotes
at the bottom of the relevant page) from additional
supportive references (assembled at the end of each
chapter as endnotes, for those who would like to
embark on additional research). Thirdly, the argu-
ment is supplemented by an abundance of graphic
material that greatly surpasses the customary expec-
tations for a book of its outlook, which would typi-
cally rely on the suggestive (or, at times,
inconclusive) presence of a few photographs and
drawings (usually by the original architects).
Indeed, the book deserves ample credit for its sys-
tematic employment of drawings, many produced
by the Author himself. Systematic here refers
both to the fact that drawings accompany the
majority of the numerous case studies, as well as
to the drawings consistent presentation through a
very limited range of graphic means and scales

(mostly 1:300 and 1:750)thereby enabling direct
Downloaded by [Aiswarya Baburaj] at 23:57 05 June 2016
comparisons between examples. Furthermore,
many case studies are also impressively analysed by
means of axonometric projection, drawn by Stead-
man, whereby schematic arrangement is fore-
grounded (as opposed to the buildings trivial
particularities) enabling the inquiry into the actuality
of the built form. Together, all of the above interlace
with accessible text (even when it is technically
demanding), to forge a manuscript that seems
within the grasp of a broad range of audiences:
either professionally engaged in the formation of
architecture or not.
Our earlier discussion of the nineteenth-century
emergence of the notion of type in architecture (in
relation to the notion of style) is important, not
only in the appraisal of Steadmans contribution to
the field, but also for understating one of his manu-
scripts major shortcomings. As already noted, even
up to the 1960s1970s, investigations of typology
often revolved around a search for the essential
(trans-cultural and trans-historical) origins underpin-
ning any known architectural construct, in conjunc-
tion with the development of a stable (planimetric)
taxonomy outlining key variants. In Steadmans
case a similar turn occurs in his explorations of the
archetypal building and what he calls morphospace.
The archetypal building is an explanatory tool with
which many (although certainly not all) possible
built forms may be generated.7 Although initially
explored as a topologically defined and matrix-
based plan consisting of seven columns and seven
rows, with a courtyard in its centre and intersecting
middle strips of artificially lit spaces, the Author then
moves on to expand it to a more complex three-by-
1131
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 20
Number 6
three array of nine courts, in which each range is
made up of three strips as before (figs 3a, b, 4).8
For its part, morphospacea term deriving (like
much of the authors underlying thinking) from
biologyis a mathematical/graphical method for
representing the ranges of actual and possible
forms Typically such a representation locates
forms within a coordinate system, in which the
axes correspond to the dimensional parameters
that describe the forms (p. 173), derived by modu-
lations of the archetypal building. That is, the arche-
typal building is a topologically defined prototype
whose parts undergo multiple geometrical and
formal operations (such as, dimensioning, subtrac-
tion or elimination) in order to generate a wide
array of possible forms. With the deployment of
unique binary codes for each of the resulting poss-
ible forms, Steadman is able to chart these into a
graph format, mapping both regular distributions
as well as singular occurrences (figs 5, 6a, b, 7).
Whilst there are numerous and open acknowl-
edgements of various limitations in the conception
and application of the archetypal building and mor-
phospace,9 the Author still considers them to be pro-
ductive. On the one hand, the claim is fairly
defensible in that, over the length of the manuscript,
there are many instances whereby spatial relation-
ships or comparisonswhich are not self-evident
are brought into relief through these investi-
gations. However, even in these instances, which
are undeniably informative for the researcher, one
cannot fail to discern that the challenges (especially
in the usage of binary codes) and restrictions (that
delimit the domain of possible forms) of taking up
these investigative approaches are such that they
 1132

Book, exhibition and

film reviews

Figure 3a. A are unlikely to be of any productive use for the

Downloaded by [Aiswarya Baburaj] at 23:57 05 June 2016

topologically-defined designer. Another way of stating this is that one

and array-based plan of
could have achieved similar analytical results
seven columns and
seven rows, with a without the deployment of complex notation and
courtyard in its centre, extensive computation. On the other hand, there is
set in the x/y coordinate a more significant reservation for the overall scho-
system. The dark-grey larly merit of these investigations. This feeds back
strips are day-lit,
to the notion of type. If we have earlier agreed
whereas the light-grey
strips are artificially lit that typeas a schema of spatial organisation
spaces. The fourteen exploring serial variationoperates amidst a
strips are enumerated in domain of proper complexity, it must be clear that
sequence, first those it always and necessarily deals with a multitude of
along the x axis (1 to 7),
parameters and variables. In fact, this is the
then those aligned with
the y axis (8 to 14). primary reason why some writers consider typology
as ineluctable in the design process,10 for it
enables the reinterpretation of known solutions to
Figure 3b. An architectural problems, themselves not reducible to
exploded-isometric view simple formal relationships. From this perspective,
of an Archetypical
Steadmans strong insistence on very few and
Building on six floors,
with the same mostly bio-technical parameters (such as the
structuring and colour- above-stated demands of light, accessibility and ven-
coding as Figure 3a, but tilation) seems insufficient to flesh out the intricacies
whose plan is expanded of what is at stake.
to a matrix of three-by-
To be clear, the Author is right in suggesting that
three courtyards,
supplemented by an such investigations of these parameters reveal a lot
additional lower floor about the domain of the possible in particular
under the level of the genres (especially before the advent of technical
courtyards (the cross- and technological inventions, such as the lift, electric
hatched pattern
lights and mechanical ventilation), as well as about
indicates that
courtyards are the design processes deployed by architects in
illuminated from the given circumstances. For instance, Chapter 8 vividly
top). recreates some of the decision-making terrain
upon which towers were thought about during the
latter part of the nineteenth century and the early
part of the twentieth century in Chicago and
 1133

The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 20
Number 6

Figure 4. With the

Downloaded by [Aiswarya Baburaj] at 23:57 05 June 2016

application of two
transformational steps,
the Archetypical
Building generates the
built form of Crescent
Court (Architects:
Neville and Bagge,
New York, 1905): a) Six
floors and appropriate
strips in x and y are
chosen; b) The selected
parts are assembled
subsequent to the
erasure of the
unselected strips; c)
Axonometric projection
of the dimensioned
building for
comparison; d) Typical
Plan of Crescent Court
redrawn from: Steven
Holl, The Alphabetical
City, Pamphlet
Architecture # 5
(New York,
San Francisco, Pamphlet
Architecture Ltd and
New York. However, the point here is that whilst this lished in 1978,11 we can quickly notice how a William Stout
approach goes far, it does not go far enough. For the similar line of investigation to Steadmans is Architectural Books,
1980), p. 38.
sake of expediency, this point can be illustrated by pursued to establish critical category distinctions
turning our attention to the manuscripts first two based upon overall formal configurations and com-
chapters, whereby a number of multi-residential munal circulation systems.
types are studied. The reason why housing is con- Now if we juxtapose this with something more
sidered more appropriate for this task has to do recentsuch as Friederike Schneiders Floor Plan
with the existence of a considerable bibliography Manual Housing (originally published in 1994)12
that investigates multi-residential developments in there is a marked difference of analytical aspirations,
typological terms. If we start from Roger Sherwoods for the latter seeks to establish its criteria of classifi-
well-known Modern Housing Prototypes, first pub- cation based on what the building does at an urban
 1134

Book, exhibition and

film reviews

Figure 5. Ascribing
Downloaded by [Aiswarya Baburaj] at 23:57 05 June 2016

binary codesnumber
1 if a strip is retained,
number 0 if it is
removedto the single-
court archetype (Figure
3a), once it has been
transformed to one
example of an L-shaped
plan. The resulting 14-
digit code for this
examplenamely,
0001111 0001111is
derived by listing the 7
digits of the x string first
which are then followed
(after a space gap) with
the 7 digits of the y
string.

Figure 6a. An
architectural
morphospace defined
within the (x/y)
coordinate system,
whereby information
from the x string of each
binary code is plotted
on the x axis, and the y
string on the y axis. In
this way, all coded
configurations are
mapped to unique (x, y)
positions, whilst all
variants of each generic
plan fall, as shown,
within distinct
(triangular or
rectangular) zones. This
graph registers all the
 1135

The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 20
Number 6

transformational
Downloaded by [Aiswarya Baburaj] at 23:57 05 June 2016

possibilities for a nine-

court archetype without
its lower floor (Figure
3b); however, the area
closest to the origin,
enclosed by the heavy
rectangle, has a
multitude of
information and is thus
shown in a distinct,
zoomed-in, graph (see
Figure 6b).

Figure 6b. The above-

mentioned part of the
preceding
morphospace drawn at
a larger scale, which is
indicated by a heavy
rectangle (closest to the
origin) in Figure 6a.

Figure 7. The
distribution of different
types of symmetry in the
zones indicated in
Figure 6b.
Arrangements with
diagonal symmetry are
found on the graphs
main diagonal, while
arrangements with
bilateral symmetry
correspond to
palindromic x or y
strings in their codes, as
shown. Arrangements
with square symmetries
 1136
Book, exhibition and
film reviews
have x and y strings that (usually block) scale.13 In other words, many of the
Downloaded by [Aiswarya Baburaj] at 23:57 05 June 2016
are both palindromes. contemporary housing publications seem to be
All these symmetries are
asking, first and foremost, how is the city imagined
indicated by symbols
showing the different with and constituted by multi-residential develop-
axes of symmetry, whilst ments, thereby pushing the question of the organis-
the circles in the graph ation of flats, as well as the arrangement of their
mark out 9 Board basic variables, to the secondary and tertiary regis-
Schools cases that are
ters.
examined in Chapter 6
of the book (and, more Perhaps this difficulty stems from anotherand
specifically, the books finalproblem, which is that Steadman accommo-
Figure 6.28). dates socio-political pressures merely as some of
the many forces challenging the formation of archi-
tecture. While this is true to the extent that these
pressures are part and parcel of a composite field,
the manuscripts surveyed material has strong evi-
dence that it might not be entirely correct to keep
them on equal footing as other, more trivial, press-
ures. For instance, if we focus on chapters 9 and
10examining Prisons and Penitentiariesthere
are abundant references14 to suggest that,
between the last few decades of the eighteenth
century and the first few decades of the nineteenth
century, the modern prison was invented, not by the
advent of incarceration but with the latters insti-
tutional transformation. If we follow Foucaults
salient Discipline and Punish, the emergence of this
transformation is brought about by panopticism
which Foucault exposes as a diagram.
Evidently, diagrams in this context surpass those
schematic graphic abstractions that are too easily
being ascribed the label in architecture today.
Here, the diagram is understood as problematising
an always already emergent (human) subjectivity;
one that is generated at the shifting intersection of
the object of the human sciences and the subject
of a governmental reason that cultivates the apti-
tude for political and moral action. Thus, we might
think of the diagram as an abstracted strategic
tension that operates through a plurality of media
(including, but not limited to, drawings, texts, sche-
dules, tabular arrangements, institutional settings,
implemented buildings, etc.), sifting and structuring
a series of potentialities for the subject in accordance
with a promise of the latters reformation. As a
socio-political machine, the diagram can be oriented
towards our intellectual development and moral
improvement through techniques of discipline, as
in the case of panopticism, but also towards other
ends.15
By extension and contrast, and in line with some of
the principal arguments in the recent typological lit-
erature,16 diagrams inevitably underwrite typologies
in a very consequential way. It is in this sense that
Steadmans interest in genres of buildings, which
are animated by common diagrams, intersects with
their typologies. Put differently, architecture is cease-
lessly promblematised not just for how we build our
cities, but also for how the latter are governed. This is
what was earlier hinted at as a diagrammatically
informed understanding of type. Given that Stead-
man is rather inattentive to the deep-seated com-
plexity of type and somewhat indifferent to the
notion of the diagram, it is hardly surprising that he
is critical of Foucaults work,17 notwithstanding
Evanss clues indicating the opposite.18 Similarly,
and returning to an earlier example, in the chapters
investigating multi-residential projects,19 there is
limited conception of how much the architecture of
housing evolved in conjunction with the emergence
of the nuclear familyor, better, the domestic

The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 20
Number 6
diagram.20 Perhaps these difficulties stem from
Downloaded by [Aiswarya Baburaj] at 23:57 05 June 2016
placing too much emphasis on a conception of
type as an instrument of analysis and classification
in the pursuit of a critical reflective terrain, rather
than as an innate reasoning in architecture and its
design, or decision-making, processes. In spite of
these scruples, Steadmans latest offering is certainly
an important bibliographical reference for opening
up multiple and significant avenues of inquiry,
whilst accomplishing this through numerous case
studies, themselves investigated in both textual and
graphic terms. In doing so, it serves as an anchoring
for and an invitation to pursue further research in
terms of how architecture could and should contrib-
ute to the urban beyond stylistic impulses.
Illustrations
All the illustrations in this review are taken from
Building Types and Built Forms, with the permission
of the Author.
Pavlos Philippou
J+A Philippou Architects and Engineers, Nicosia
Cyprus
Department of Architecture, University of Nicosia;
Department of Architecture, University of Cyprus
(Authors e-mail address: pavlos.philippou@
japhilippou.com)
Notes and references
1. This is not the case for those works that set out to
explore the histories (in the plural) of the field,
whereby a more intricate historical practice seeks to
avoid grand narratives and forceful teleology in
1137
favour of a conceptualisation of both continuities and
ruptures.
2. An example of the former is: Dan Cruickshank, ed.;
Andrew Saint, Peter Blundell Jones, Kenneth Framp-
ton, consultant eds; Fleur Richards, assistant ed.; Sir
Banister Fletcher, originator, Sir Banister Fletchers A
History of Architecture, Twentieth Edition (Oxford,
Architectural Press, 2001; first published, 1996). An
example of the latter is: Charles Jencks, The Story of
Post-Modernism: Five Decades of the Ironic, Iconic
and Critical in Architecture (London, John Wiley &
Sons, 2011).
3. Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge
(London, Routledge Classics, 2003); originally pub-
lished as L Archologie du Savoir (Paris, ditions Galli-
mard, 1969).
4. As evident in the work of Heinrich Hbsch and Gott-
fried Semper as well as Antoine-Chrysostome Quatre-
mre de Quincy, Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand and
Julien David Le Roy.
5. A strong contribution to the re-emergence of type at
this time was made by Giulio Carlo Argan and his
circle, especially after the publication of the Argans
essay On the Typology of Architecture, originally
published in 1962: English translation, Architectural
Design, 33, (December, 1963), pp. 5645. Broadly
speaking, in the writings of the 1960s1970s
there are three dominant ways in which type
was understood: namely, as a geometric taxonomy,
a signifying dimension, or a form/function
arrangement.
6. Nikolaus Pevsner, A History of Building Types (London,
Thames and Hudson Ltd, 1976).
7. P. 107.
8. The initial version is developed in pp. 100104, the
latter in pp. 105113.
9. For the archetypal building, for instance, see pp. 107,
110 (including Note 18), as well as various moments
 1138
Book, exhibition and
film reviews
in Chapter 12. Examples for the notion of morpho-
Downloaded by [Aiswarya Baburaj] at 23:57 05 June 2016
space are in pp. 173 (Note viii) and 189.
10. For instance, Alan Colquhoun, Typology and Design
Method, in Essays in Architectural Criticism;
Modern Architecture and Historical Change (Opposi-
tions Books. Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press,
1991).
11. Roger Sherwood, Modern Housing Prototypes (Cam-
bridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1978).
12. Friederike Schneider, ed., Floor Plan Manual Housing,
Third, Revised and Expanded Edition, with a New
Preface by Oliver Heckmann (Basel, Boston, Berlin, Bir-
khauser, 2004; first published, 1994.)
13. This review of the literature of multi-residential housing
has benefited from a private conversation with Tarsha
Finney.
14. Two of the foremost references on the subject are:
Robin Evans, The Fabrication of Virtue. English Prison
Architecture 17501840 (Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 1982) and Michel Foucault, Discipline
and Punish; The Birth of the Prison (New York, Vintage
Books. 1995).
15. For instance, other diagrams are of the neighbour-
hood, the domestic and the cultural.
16. Lawrence F. Barth, The Complication of Type, in, Christo-
pher C. M. Lee, Sam Jacoby, eds, Typological Formations;
Renewable Building Types and the City (London, Architec-
tural Association Publications, 2007), pp. 158164.
17. This occurs in a few instances, for example in Note xiv,
p. 343.
18. As paraphrased by Steadman (p. 379), Evans
suggested that Jeremy Benthams Panopticon was
more a contraption than a building.
19. This also occurs in the concluding chapters of the pub-
lication: for instance, p. 378.
20. This argument is teased out in Michel Foucault, The
History of Sexuality. Volume 1: An Introduction
(New York, Vintage Books Edition, 1990), as well
as in Jacques Donzelot, The Policing of Families (Balti-
more, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997).