ABSTRACT
The explicit understanding and classification of building types reflected a conscious effort to provide rational explanations for existing types and provided a rational legitimacy for architectural form. The word type presents less the image of thing to copy or imitate, than the idea of an element, which ought in itself to serve as a rule for the model. The primary differences between the earliest Enlightenment ideas of type and those of the 20th century were the latter’s emphasis on the city, and the role of building types in the city. Architects can exploit these meanings in one of two ways: by using the type to relate specifically to a historical moment, as when a temple type is appropriated for use as a bank; or by using the type as part of a subversive or critical stance, as when a form associated with a prison is appropriated as a city hall.
