formal typologies

In relation to dense residential environments, I am also interested in the study of collective housing typologies.

Collective or mass housing is defined primarily by quantity and it acquires its spatial quality through grouping. This type of dwelling houses large numbers of people with varying degrees of housing quality. Within it the housing units are closely grouped, according to rules of horizontal or vertical assemblage, generating spaces with public, semi-public or private character in which certain social practices of housing unfold. Collective housing draws its name origin from the way in which the building is accessed, namely by a common path serving all the units [1].
In an attempted typological classification of contemporary collective housing models of high-density, I turned towards a non-exhaustive generic formal classification, based on the studies of Mozas J and Per AF from the “Density Series” books [2]. Each of the typologies uses as starting point the individual housing unit, the apartment, which is consequently multiplied in an identical or variable pattern of configuration. The typological categories vary according to composition principles based on the housing unit, on size and by the way in which the building relates to the urban tissue.


Starting from the singular and abstract typological unit represented by the individual house, the first category is driven by multiplying, joining or overlapping multiple units. The configurations generated by those operations are either classical attached or row houses, either contemporary types of folded row or stacked houses.
The individual unit is usually related to the terrain, benefiting of a court or a terrace and of direct individual or paired access from the ground level. This category makes the transition from individual housing to collective housing of a higher degree of density.



The second typology represents a quantitative increase in size, in number of individual units and scale compared to the “house” typology. The block height is moderate, usually ranging between 3 and 5 levels; this height is traditionally justified by the number of levels convenient for walking. Its relative low configuration, its flexible footprint on the ground and its scale allow the object to enroll organically within the context.
The block can be freestanding on the plot, it can have free sides or it can continue an existing building by cleaving onto a party wall.


City Blocks

The city block  is an urban building flanked on all sides by streets in relation to the urban fabric. Its scale is directly related to the scale of the city. The city block generally involves a large spatial diversity and a relatively high privacy degree. It can have the same height as the block typology or higher, depending on the context. Buildings ranging between 4 to 7 levels are ideal in terms of energy footprint, which is lower than that of taller buildings.


High-Rise Buildings

The high-rise type, also known as tower block, is represented by tall buildings with multiple levels. There is no universal definition for the number of levels that determines a building to gain this status; this height is variable according to different geographic areas.
This typology is justified by economic considerations, not only in relation to construction costs, but also in relation to urban infrastructure and land resources. Their impact on the neighboring urban tissue is high and the main disadvantages are excessive shading and energy consumption.
The stacked units block is the most interesting type from my point of view, being able to generate spatial quality and diversity. It derives from additive processes of small scale units or overlapped uneven floors.


Mixed Solutions

The mixed solution typology involves combinations of the above, justified by context and project brief. There are no precise formal categories for this typology.


[1]   Zahariade AM. Arhitectură Locuire Oraș, ALO 2009-10. Second year’s course, second semester. Department of Hystory & Theory of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, UAUIM, Bucharest.

[2]   Mozas J, Per AF. Density: New Collective Housing. A+t ediciones, Vitoria-Gasteiz; pp. 14-17, 2004.