............................................................................................................................... 41 2.6 The concept of typology in architecture

In our days trying to analyze or design a hotel, has become a challenge. For the nature of the function, it presents difficulties in analyzing the trends and new ideas of hotel designing is a direct-oriented product of the nature of tourism business travel industry.

Today, the expectations for comfort, qualitative services, and particularity, are incorporated within the homogenized international travel, so the hotel design is often endorsed as “international design”

Session C: The Typology Discourse

2.6 The concept of typology in architecture

This session will provide a wider discourse regarding the typology in architecture, trying to relate it to basic cellules of requirements for the design of new hotels while searching for variables to enrich this process.

Typology can be understood as “the identification of essential types of building or element — can seem primarily an enterprise of systematization and ordering” (Jones, 2017). Its basic role as a guiding principle can be considered as generic frame of reference for interpretation, while the contemporary design seems to avoid the heuristic demeanor.

Durand understands the typology, […] not a catalog of immediately applicable solutions but a system of classifications that makes it possible to familiarize oneself with the various problems that may turn up in practice but without any thought of covering them systematically” (Durand, 2000, p. 45)

Quatremére de Quincy sustains his definition of the architectural “type” in the representation of the type, not exactly as the image or aspect to be copied, but as the

idea or element which could be itself extracted to serve as a general rule for the generated model. This approach itself, considers that is also the basic for obtaining ouvres which contains the same conceptual element but without visual resemblences.

In ‘the Third Typology’ (1977) Anthony Vidler argues that the invention of the enterprise of typology was as much about seeking validation for architectural form-making as it was about the systematization of evidence. In a broad survey of the history of the idea since the mid-18th century, he identifies three currents, corresponding to nature (c1750-1860), production (1860-1950) and the city (1960–). (Jones, 2017)

In his article (Jones, 2017) identifies from the middle of XVIII-th century, two main approaches towards the typology which has formed and enhanced the production of architecture:

“The first, developed out of the rationalist philosophy of the Enlightenment, and initially formulated by the Abbé Laugier, proposed that a natural basis for design was to be found in the model of the primitive hut. The second, growing out of the need to confront the question of mass production at the end of the XIX-th century, and most clearly stated by Le Corbuseri, proposed that the model of architectural design should be founded in the production process itself” (Jones, 2017)

The second analogy is extended in functionalism, where the ideological mission of architecture, was revealed in the access to nature, efficiently use of resources and proportioned spaces.

In the Third Typology, the typological model and object are no longer external to architecture, but rather are directed at the evidence of its own disciplinary and material history. (Jones, 2017)

“Typology becomes an ontology of the city in which the operation of validation no longer figures. The Third Typology has no grand supporting analogy; and deploys identifications as part of a critical engagement with the contemporary reality of the city. Third Typology has only a critical, and never a merely affirmative, function, which most severely limits its scope.

“Today, “type” and “Typology” stand for an accepted norm and classifying device [...]” while leaving space to [... ] argue for a modern reasoning of form though the means of abstraction” (Jacoby, 2013) Typology can be understood as two parts of the same process, by underlining this concept as part of a process which comprises the historical components at the same time including the individuality of the architect or researcher. And being a central component to understand the relationships of architecture with the city is a dominant feature of Typology.

In Analogy with the Theoretical Concept of Abbé Laugier, expressing the house as the unit which may include comprise three layers of typology: Space, Function, Morphology ... the Hotel can it be interpreted as a typology regarding Morphology; Relation with the landscape/city considering its ‘non-standardized function’ and orienting more towards the “typological-morphological approach”, which suggests focusing on the similarities, on the universal and enduring, i.e permanent character of cities through comparative study of urban form […] (Guney, 2007, p. 12)