Mimarlık kuramlarında tip ve tipoloji kavramları

Öz

Tipoloji, nesneleri fiziksel ya da diğer özelliklerine dayanarak tiplere ayırmak için yapılan çalışmalara verilen addır. Tarihte ilk kez Aydınlanma Çağı’nda önem kazanan tipolojik yaklaşım, günümüzde mantıksal-matematiksel bilimlerle sosyo-kültürel bilimler arasında, ortak amaçları çerçevesinde iletişimi sağlayabilen önemli bir bakış açısı konumundadır. Bu yazıda, mimarlık söyleminde yer alan tip ve tipoloji kuramları, ortaya çıktıkları üç ayrı tarihsel düzlemde incelenmiştir. Mimarlık alanında ilk tip kuramı yine Aydınlanma Çağı’nda ortaya atılırken, ikinci kuram Modernist ideolojiye, üçüncü kuram ise Neo-Rasyonel yaklaşıma dayanarak oluşturulmuştur. Bu çalışmanın amacı, entellektüel tarihte çok önemli bir yer tutan tip ve tipoloji kavramlarının, mimarlığı ve mimarlığın içinde bulunduğu tarihsel ve sosyo-kültürel etkenleri anlamamız için önemini vurgulamaktır. Yazıda ayrıca, mimarlık disiplininde tip ve tipoloji kavramlarının tartışılmaya devam edilmesinin gerekliliği de vurgulanmaktadır. Bu tartışmalar, sadece mimari nesneleri basit tiplere ayırmaktan öte, bunlar arasındaki görünmeyen bağların farkedilerek, aralarındaki ilişkilerin daha iyi kavramasına yardımcı olabilecek bir bakış açısı oluşumu için gerekli ve önemlidir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tip, tipoloji, mimarlık, mimarlık kuramları, mimarlık tarihi

Type and typology in architectural discourse

Öz

Typology is the comparative study of physical or other characteristics of the built environment into distinct types. In this paper, the historical transformation of type and typology concepts since the Enlightenment has been examined in three developing stages based on methodological and historical interpretation: The first conceptualization developed out of the rationalist philosophy of the Enlightenment, the second relates to the modernist ideology and the last to Neo-Rationalism after the 1960s. The study aims to highlight the significance of the concepts of type and typology that are so rich in tradition and so important for intellectual history, and that could aid in enhancing our understanding of architecture within its historical and socio-cultural contexts. A discussion of type and typology can promote a way of looking at the built environment, that can not only help us recognize and discover basic types but also enhance our ability to see the differences as well as similarities among architectural artifacts by recognizing the invisible connections between them

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Type, typology, architecture, architectural theory, architectural history

Kaynakça

1. Franck, K. and Schneekloth, M. (eds.) “Ordering Space: Types in Architecture and Design” New York. “Webster’s College Dictionary” New York. Random House (1997).
2. Mauro, T. D., “Typology” Casabella, 509-510: 88-91, (1985).
3. Quatremere de Quincy, A. C., “Type” (trans.) A. Vidler, Oppositions, 8: 147- , (1977).
4. Vidler, A., “The İdea of Type: the Transformation of the Academic İdeal, 1750- ” Oppositions, 8:
5. Kruft, H. A., “History of Architectural Theory: From Vitruvius to the Present” New York. Princeton Lampugnani, V. M., “Typology and Typification” Casabella, 509-510: 84-87, (1985).
6. Perez-Gomez, A., “Architecture and the Crisis of Modern Science” Cambridge. MİT Press (1983).
7. Van Nostrand Reinhold (1994). 113, (1977).
8. Architectural Press (1994).

9. Oechslin, W., “For a Resumption of the Typological Discussion” Casabella, 510: 66-75 (1985).
10. Vidler, A., “The Third Typology” Oppositions, 7: 1-3, (1976).
11. Moneo, R., “On Typology” Oppositions, 13: 23-45, (1978).
12. Gregotti, V., “The Grounds of Typology” Casabella, 509-510: 4-8, (1985).
13. Reichlin, B., “Type and Tradition of the Modern” Casabella, 509-510: 32-39, (1985).
14. Tafuri, M., “Theories and History of Architecture” New York. Harper and Row (1976).
15. Scolari, M., “The Typological Commitment” Casabella, 509-510: 42-44, (1985).
16. Rossi, A., “The Architecture of the City” Cambridge. MİT Press (1982).
17. Krier, R., “Urban Space” New York. Rizzoli (1979).
18. Francescato, G., “Type and Possibility of an Architectural Scholarship” Franck, K.(ed) Ordering Space: N. Reinhold (1994).
19. Types in Architecture and Design. New York. V. De Carlo, G., “Notes on the Uncontrollable Ascent of Typology” Casabella, 510: 46-52, (1985).
20. Bohigas, O., “Ten Opinions on the Type” Casabella, 509-510: 93, (1985).
21. Colquhoun, A., “Essays in Architectural Criticism” Cambridge. MİT Press (1995).
22. Krier, R., “Architectural Composition” New York. Rizzoli (1988).
23. Laugier, M. A., “An Essay on Architecture” (trans.) Herrmann, W., Los Angeles. Hennessey and İngalls (1977).
24. Cataldi, G. and G. L. Maffei and N. Marzot and G. Strappa and P. Vaccaro “A contribution of the disciplinary foundation of Urban Morphology” paper İnternational Seminar on Urban Form, Symposium (2005). presented at the Moudon, A. V. “Urban Morphology as an Emerging İnterdisciplinary Field,” in
25. Urban Morphology, 1, 3-10, (1997).
26. Moudon, A. V. “Getting to know the Built Landscape: Typomorphology,” in Franck, K. and Architecture and Design” New York. Van Nostrand Reinhold: 289-311 (1994);
27. Schneekloth, M. (eds.) “Ordering Space: Types in A. V. Moudon, Built for Change: Neighborhood Architecture in San Francisco (1986).
28. Kubat, A. S. and O. Ertekin and Y. İ. Guney (eds) Proceedings of the 6 th İnternational Space Syntax Symposium, University (2007). İstanbul, İstanbul Technical
29. Hillier, B. and Leaman, A. “How is Design Possible,” in Journal of Architectural Research, 3: 4-11 Logic of Space, (1984).
30. Hillier, B. Space is the Machine, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996).
31. (1974), Hillier, B. and J. Hanson, Social
32. Guney, Y. İ. Appropriated A la Franga: An Examination of Turkish Modernization Through the Lens of Domestic Culture, Ann Arbor: ProQuest UMİ (2006).
33. Kubat, A. S. "The Morphological Characteristics of Anatolian Fortified Towns". Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24:95-123, (1997).