There is different understanding between these terms. I like to know the exact differences between them.
"Type" categorizes buildings in two different ways: functional type -- what is it for, is it for example a dwelling, a retail store, a factory; and formal or physical type -- what is its configuration, is it a one-story big box building, a skyscraper, a domed rotunda.
"Character" refers to the impression a building makes, how it is perceived. Is it serious and formal or lighthearted, playful, amusing; is it brash and flashy or modest and understated. The term is analogous to character in a story or drama; it enters the architectural discourse from theatre in the eighteenth century.
"Pattern" is a visual device, a scheme for arranging things like windows, siding panels, masonry units. Grids, checkerboards, basketweaves, and diapers (diagonal grids) are common patterns.
There's considerable scholarly discussion of Type, some of Character, and not much of Pattern, as far as I know. I can suggest some sources in a few days, if you're interested.
Hi Akram,
Type, to me, is a mental image which represents a distinct group of buildings. Pattern, moreover, contains all the possible solutions for a specific problem and works in a system as a type. To clarify this, there might be a pattern for everyday activities in a neighborhood, a pattern for designing Islamic houses, etc. each of which could utilize and draw upon one or multiple Types.
Character, however, could have various definitions. A city, for instance, could be characterized by its building Types. or a tower could be characterized by its height or its functions. To me, Character is shaped over time and is a quality that a building (or anything really!) acquires according to its different attributes.
I hope this was helpful!
Best
Unquestionably; no relationships are connecting those terms in the realm of architecture.
Perhaps, the relation is in-between personality, character, and identity.
Or between patterns, kind, and type.
Hisham Abusaada could you please elaborate on the in-between relationships that you mentioned?
Soroush Masoumzadeh@ For instance, urban identity means a clear impact on residents’ perceptions about urban quality and evaluating existing and projected elements. Place identity is a fundamental need, a subtle aspect of the sense of place, a clever concept, a critical dimension, and a set of meanings . Character or identity are relatively stable for each individual citizen and their feeling like part of the city. Each city is characterized by history and form; the city is “an archaeological artifact”.
Urban identity means a clear impact on residents’ perceptions about urban quality and evaluating existing and projected elements. Place identity is a fundamental need, a subtle aspect of the sense of place, a clever concept, a critical dimension, and a set of meanings . Character or identity are relatively stable for each individual citizen and their feeling like part of the city. Each city is characterized by history and form; the city is “an archaeological artifact”.
Dear Hisham Abusaada ,Soroush Masoumzadeh
I am not talking about relationship between type, character, and pattern. I am asking about the differences between these terms in architecture rather than urban design.
So if you think that there is a difference, let us know pls.
The differences can be analyzed using the using objectfor simplified guide:
Type is a specific tangible brand name given to an object.
Character is an intangible mode that adds meaning to an object.
Pattern is a systematic manipeststion of features on the object.
"Type" categorizes buildings in two different ways: functional type -- what is it for, is it for example a dwelling, a retail store, a factory; and formal or physical type -- what is its configuration, is it a one-story big box building, a skyscraper, a domed rotunda.
"Character" refers to the impression a building makes, how it is perceived. Is it serious and formal or lighthearted, playful, amusing; is it brash and flashy or modest and understated. The term is analogous to character in a story or drama; it enters the architectural discourse from theatre in the eighteenth century.
"Pattern" is a visual device, a scheme for arranging things like windows, siding panels, masonry units. Grids, checkerboards, basketweaves, and diapers (diagonal grids) are common patterns.
There's considerable scholarly discussion of Type, some of Character, and not much of Pattern, as far as I know. I can suggest some sources in a few days, if you're interested.
Another meaning of "pattern" that may be closer to what you were looking for: "Pattern books" are catalogs, in effect, of architectural designs, usually for houses; they start to appear in the early nineteenth century, issued by architects, and eventually governmental agencies and merchandisers like Sears Roebuck. You were meant to order the construction drawings (and in the case of Sears, even the materials) for your selected design, but more often people just showed the page to a builder, who could build something like it without any more design help. So when you see many similar but not identical versions of the same late nineteenth- / early twentieth-century house, chances are there's a "pattern" in this sense behind them.
Type is a way of categorizing, or conceiving things, and as Soroush Masoumzadeh says, can in some cases be encapsulated in an image. Things can be categorized consciously in terms of defined categories (often defined by borders, or what is in or outside the category) or unconsciously, as images that represent a larger idea, like "house," or "cat". These unconscious categories are more ambiguous, often culturally-informed, and are defined in terms of their central meaning, not by their border conditions as conscious categories are often framed. That means that unconscious categories may contain certain contradictory elements, like the typical visual image of "house" may have a pitched roof, although many houses in actuality do not. (Robinson, "The Question of Type," in Franck and Schneekloth, 1994).
I have not thought long about character and pattern, but here are some thoughts. Character to me is tied to "characteristics." That is to say that character is , as Robert Ferguson notes, is how an object or person is perceived. If we consider characteristics, in architecture we can begin to describe what contributes to character by identifying specific characteristics. But the character itself is best described through analogy rather than analytical elements. The attempt to recreate a certain character would require attempting to match the characteristics, perhaps impossible, but might result in a character that would resemble the original.
I agree with Robert that pattern in architecture is typically visual, although in other fields such as music it can relate to other senses as well. Pattern could be understood as both perceived, and conceived in the sense that the mind sees a pattern in an object or event , and could be understood to impose the pattern, or to simply observe the pattern. Pattern usually involves some kind of repetition of an element or elements in a consistent way.
the architecture of an application refers to the larger structure and organization of the application, while a design pattern refers to a method of solving a specific type of problem,
quora.com › What-is-the-difference-between-design-pattern-and-architecture
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Design
- Architecture