Andreas Lechner (TU Graz) & Gennaro Postiglione (POLIMI) 

Architectural Affordances – Typologies of Umbau

Architectural Affordances is a research project and publication that investigates architectural affordances—understood here as the inherent possibilities for use, adaptation, and interaction that a building’s design supports— for building transformation and adaptive reuse in two key dimensions. First, it explores how the concept of affordances can deepen and extend architectural typology. Through case studies it illustrates that typological clarity enhances architectural quality and fosters flexibility for future adaptations. Beyond fulfilling immediate functional needs, this typal quality leads to a second objective: rethinking resilience in architectural design by revisiting post-functionalist critiques. Here, ‘type’ is re-framed as an epistemology within architecture, emphasizing the timely renewal, reuse, and recycling of knowledge and materials in the built environment.

These two key aspects further a ‘designerly’ response to the climate emergency and global carbon reduction goals, as adaptive reuse has gained traction as a sustainable alternative to demolition and new construction. Our research and its resulting publication demonstrate and visualize how adaptive reuse practices benefit from engaging with typology and affordances, featuring insights from practitioners, educators, and researchers and aiming to inform architectural studios and academic curricula, and underscoring the need for critical reflection and dialogue in design education.

driven research reflection that seeks to explore and further sustainable design strategies that are aiming at resilient building structures but are quintessentially architectural in nature.

Cooperative Research Project at DAStU - Politecnico di Milano
2022-2024




A “Call for Papers (by Drawings)” was launched at the end of March 2023.


Scientific Committee

Matthias Ballestrem
[Bauhaus Earth]
Marco Bovati
[Politecnico di Milano]
Antonio Carvalho [Politecnico di Milano]
Lorenzo De Chiffre 
[TU Wien]
Victoria Easton 
[ETH Zürich]
Andreas Lechner 
[TU Graz] 
Angelo Lunati
[Politecnico di Milano]
Gennaro Postiglione
[Politecnico di Milano]
Paola Scala 
[Università di Napoli, Federico II]

Coordination

Maike Gold (TU Graz)
Francesca Serrazanetti (Politecnico di Milano)

1 Introduction 

1.1    Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

Especially in the last two decades, the practice of adaptive reuse, involving the saving and transformation of existing buildings, has gained considerable prominence and has evolved into a distinct field of study and practice, separate from traditional building conservation and evident in both practical projects and scholarly research. Authors writing on the subject in the past decade emphasized its crucial role in responding to contemporary challenges, and the cultural attitude of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle aligns with the ethos of the twenty-first century, where everything is valued for its usefulness, purpose, and authenticity. This mindset has fueled growing literature on adaptive reuse, reflecting its increasing importance (e.g. Berke and De Monchaux 2023, Wong 2023, Stone 2020, Plevoets and Van Cleempoel 2019, Robiglio 2017, Wong 2016, Schmidt and Austin 2016, Jaeger 2010, Scott 2008 to name only a few). The recent international colloquium As Found by Hasselt University as well as the cahier Trace – Notes on adaptive reuse, an annual peer-reviewed publication by the research group Trace at the same university and the connected web platform www.adaptreuse.com indicate one important node in the growing formation and establishment of international networks of both researchers and practitioners.

1.2    Affordances between ‘Hard’ and ‘Soft’ values

In this context, architectural design is understood as a transdisciplinary cultural practice that addresses both 'hard' values—such as technical and material concerns—and 'soft' cultural values that shape and redefine the social dimensions infusing places with meaning. This approach involves 'reading' a place: understanding and interpreting its narrative and extending it toward a future state, operating within and beyond traditional architectural disciplines. Such an approach contributes to an emergent theoretical framework that intersects with broader contemporary discourses. This framework is vital because interpretations of adaptive reuse vary significantly according to the disciplinary perspectives, traditions, and agendas of different contributors. Consequently, adaptive reuse lacks a singular definition, as the relationship between old and new frequently surpasses material, functional, or cultural contrasts (Lanz and Pendlebury 2022, 255).

The Affordances of Architectural Typology project promotes a process-oriented approach to designing with the 'unaltered.' What follows is a detailed outline of the project’s core tenets, showcasing a methodology that aims to balance design within a sustainable, enabling framework of 'typological design'—a recognition of the inherent affordances of a building's type. In certain instances, this methodology may guide a strategic transformation of the existing fabric, enhancing its 'typological' qualities. Despite the variability among cases, these transformations underscore the value of specialized architectural design expertise that is essential for preserving the resilience of buildings.

2    TYPOLOGY

2.1    Architectural Types

The literature and theoretical discourse on adaptive reuse remain notably inconclusive—a trait that parallels with a grain of salt past debates around architectural typology (Lechner 2021). By embedding cultural and historical affordances in the urban environment and reinforcing a continuum of architectural form, adaptive reuse can also exceed pragmatic repurposing. This perspective overlaps with type theory, wherein buildings embody collective urban memory within an evolving continuity, a view that theorists like Ernesto Rogers, Ludovico Quaroni, and Saverio Muratori stressed by reconnecting building types with the shape of the city itself. Carlo Aymonino and Aldo Rossi expanded this view by merging morphological studies of urban form with structural anthropology, building on Giulio Carlo Argan’s 1962 essay, which revisited Quatremère de Quincy’s distinction between “model” (fixed pattern) and “type” (flexible schema). They posited that architecture’s enduring power stems from formal structures layered with cultural meanings (Rossi 1966). By framing typology as a culturally constructed system, these theorists not only critiqued the International Style and postwar redevelopment but instead favored a more complex understanding of a historically continuous urban fabric. By the mid-1970s, typological theory had permeated European architectural discourse, solidifying the notion that the city is a collective repository of memory whose spatial morphology should be preserved and adapted rather than replaced by modernist functionalism. When typology reached American academia in the late 1970s, however, it encountered a different ideological and economic climate, diverging from its European role as a critical response to modernist urban planning. Instead, in the United States, it converged with a growing interest in postmodern historicism and a broader cultural shift, wherein architectural concepts were increasingly commodified and marketed, rather than advanced as critical theoretical positions (Goode 1992).

2.2    (Re-)Assessing History for, of, and in Architecture

In Architectural Affordances, we revisit Aldo Rossi’s theories alongside Carlos Martí Arís’s concept of type, understood as both a distillation of historical experience and a codified repository of architectural knowledge—promoting continuity while remaining open to creative reinterpretation (Martí Arís, 1990). Building on Anthony Vidler’s The Third Typology (1977), we can identify three primary eras of typological reasoning in architectural discourse: The first, rooted in Enlightenment theorists like Marc-Antoine Laugier, idealized the “primitive hut” as a natural archetype—a structure of columns and beams inspiring neoclassicism. The second typology, dominant from the 19th century through early modernism, compared buildings to machines, exemplified by Bentham’s Panopticon and Le Corbusier’s “machine for living,” but often led to sterile, disconnected environments. Vidler’s third typology, shaped by architects like Aldo Rossi and Carlo Aymonino, rejected these reductive analogies to “nature” or “machine.” Instead, it saw the city’s accumulated form and cultural memory as the primary source of architectural meaning. Today, a “fourth” typology might be emerging, driven by a growing focus on adaptive reuse. This approach values the environmental, economic, and cultural potential of existing structures, not to reproduce historical continuity with faux-old designs, but to transform buildings—whether vernacular or minor—into spaces accommodating new uses and meanings. While this resonates with Rossi’s emphasis on the city’s evolving fabric, adaptive reuse also foregrounds sustainability, resource stewardship, and community-driven renewal. And this fundamentally requires architectural sensitivity to uncover and leverage a structure’s deeper affordances. However, adaptive reuse, like any method, risks becoming nostalgic recycling if detached from robust urban analysis. Yet it remains a powerful strategy for addressing climate challenges and urban densification, bridging individual buildings and broader urban forms. Crucially, it extends beyond the historic city’s cultural layers to engage with peripheries and low typologies—offering new opportunities for architectural expertise to shape sustainable, inclusive futures.

2.3    Expanding Typal Reasoning

Exploring typology through James J. Gibson’s concept of affordances highlights the specialized architectural expertise required to engage, through both design and design research, with the transformative possibilities inherent in current and future spatial scenarios. This interdisciplinary approach, linking design reasoning with affordances, addresses ecological and pedagogical imperatives by advocating for the integration of building adaptation more deeply into architectural design education. Gibson’s affordance theory offers a framework for refining and evolving architectural expertise. As he explains, “An affordance cuts across the dichotomy of subjective-objective and helps us to understand its inadequacy. It is equally a fact of the environment and a fact of behavior. It is both physical and psychical, yet neither. An affordance points both ways, to the environment and to the observer” (Gibson 1979, 129). By embedding affordances within typological reasoning, architects can reimagine the adaptive potential of spatial structures beyond static definitions, encouraging innovative approaches to design that are responsive to diverse future scenarios.

2.4    Environment and Human Perception

This perspective reframes the relationship between the built environment and human perception by focusing on the potential actions the environment enables—aligning closely with the process of adapting, renewing, or reconfiguring recurring architectural forms. In architectural terms, affordances refer not only to the physical characteristics of a space but also to its potential to support a spectrum of uses or actions for occupants (Griffero 2016, 60-62). Gibson’s theory emphasizes the dynamic, reciprocal relationship between environment and individual, suggesting that architectural spaces afford a range of interactions that evolve across time and context. Importantly, a space’s affordances are not universal; they vary based on cultural, social, and individual factors that influence how people perceive and engage with their surroundings. This contextual awareness encourages architects to prioritize the inherent spatial qualities (e.g.: the typological qualities) over rigid functional programs, fostering an adaptable and inclusive approach to design that accommodates changing uses and occupants’ evolving needs.

2.5    Factoring Influences

Gibson’s concept of affordances profoundly impacts architectural theory and typology by shifting the focus from static forms to the dynamic interplay between built environments, their users and their designers. Affordance theory offers a lens to understand how architectural elements communicate possibilities for action, shaping human behavior and experience. It expands the understanding of architectural types—such as linear, radial, domed, or reticulated structures,—as enduring spatial frameworks that transcend temporal and geographical boundaries yet remain adaptable. Once positioned in contrast to modernist ideals of universal principles and the dismissal of historical precedent, affordances now underscore both rational and intuitive design considerations. They highlight the objective and subjective dimensions of the material composition of a building as a process of mediation between forms and functions spanning different timescales. This correlation of architectural typologies with affordances serves as an index of the resilience and longevity of a building, illustrating how it was continuously adapted to or facilitated diverse uses and ways of inhabiting space over time.

3    ARCHITECTURAL AFFORDANCES

3.1    Reading Structures

How can we fathom affordances in architecture? While on-site visits are invaluable for physically and intuitively grasping a building’s current state and imagining potential transformations through tacit, experiential knowledge, a systematic approach requires supplementing these observations with spatial data derived from cartographic methods. Identifying affordances means layering descriptive information to map and analyze – i.e. to make recognizable – a building’s spatial characteristics in relation to a larger historical narrative, which encompasses architectural history (the development of architecture), the history of a given building (specific details about changes in structure, use, materials, furnishings, claddings etc.), and the dialogical dimension of history within architecture as contextual and site specific relationships that inform transformative design gestures. Viewing adaptive reuse solely as an architectural intervention that repurposes a building oversimplifies its broader cultural and transformative potential and risks excluding a significant framework for its deeper understanding.

3.2    A Call for Papers (Through Drawing)

This is what our Call for Papers, launched in March 2023, set out to explore. Addressing internationally both scholars and practitioners we asked for abstracts of transformation projects through which the processes behind transformation and adaptive reuse could be studied in detail.

Exclusively through architectural drawings—within a given format of plan, section, and elevation— and concisely annotated historic information we set out to highlighting the fundamental role of drawing in shaping and reinterpreting our built environment. Asking for illustrations of architectural qualities from a designer’s perspective, called for abstractions that make envisioning both past and future forms of habitation and transformation possible – thereby revealing the often unchanged essence of a building as its 'type': This type embodies a formal organizing principle, lending recognizable order to architectural elements. This organizing principle is particularly visible in historic buildings, where load-bearing elements, volume, and room arrangements overlap, allowing for centuries of adaptation and reuse. In contrast, modern structures frequently require greater interpretative intervention, as they often lack a clear typological reference for spatial organization. Our call asked for reuse interventions that emphasize such a 'typological approach' deeply engaged with a structure’s typological qualities, fostering transformations that respect and enhance the underlying architectural type, even when its presence is subtle.

3.3    Typology of Three Categories According to Age

With the help of an international scientific board we decided on thirty projects where the identification of the typological essence of an existing building (or lack thereof), beyond its functional or aesthetic aspects, involves translating spatial phenomena into architectural form. This process entails mapping spatial relationships and related information in a manner that disrupts traditional architectural coherence, allowing the architectural process to integrate both time and place by exploring embedded discontinuities (Schonderbeeck 2022). Architectural drawing facilitates this multi-layered process, enabling an analytic, representational, and speculative view that suspends a building’s ties to a specific time or place. Through mapping, we establish a spatial ordering system, developing a theoretical stance by comparing instances of (adaptive) reuse. This conceptualization of order encompasses spatial arrangement, taxonomy, organization, and program, supported by annotated historical references, offering a spatial and theoretical narrative that deepens the reader's engagement with the project.

This mapping-centered approach deliberately ignores the site of the projects, it “genius loci” or urban context and it also contrasts with Wong’s recently published typology of adaptive reuse, which categorizes projects into generic typologies (Wong 2023). In our model, we organize buildings into three typological categories based on their life cycles. The first category comprises structures with a strong typological imprint, such as monuments or palazzi, that require minimal intervention to accommodate new uses. These buildings embody resilience and longevity, sustained by their intrinsic typological affordances, facilitating sustainable reuse across centuries.

3.3.1    Centuries of Palazzo Gravina: A Case Study in Longevity

As an illustrative example, we present the complete history of Palazzo Gravina (1549–2023) in Naples, Italy, which evolved from a private palazzo to a housing block, a public building, and ultimately to its current role as a school of architecture (Figure 1, 2). This example is particularly instructive, as it vividly demonstrates the “affordances of architectural typology,” supporting our hypothesis that clear typological integrity significantly enhances a building’s resilience, transcending its original purpose and affirming the central role of typology in a sustainable, design-driven approach. Our analysis reveals that buildings with a strong typological footprint often undergo transformations with minimal interventions, resulting in a significantly lower carbon footprint. This quality underscores the sustainable potential of such buildings, highlighting a purely architectural resilience rooted in typological affordance.

Fig. 1 Palazzo Gravina in Naples

Fig. 2 Palazzo Gravina in Naples, Details

Palazzo Gravina (1549–2023) in Naples, Italy, exemplifies a typologically driven evolution, transitioning from a private residence to a multi-functional public space and ultimately to a school of architecture. The accompanying image illustrates the standardized documentation format applied across all case studies, featuring page spreads that detail each transformation, annotated plans highlighted in yellow and red, and interpretative text that includes key historical data.

3.3.2 Hospital to Hotel: A Life Cycle Beyond 100 Years

The second category comprises 19th-century buildings originating from newly emerging typologies such as museums, theaters, railway stations, or industrial facilities. These case studies exhibit a clear typological structure that significantly contributes to their resilience, allowing them to extend their use far beyond their original purpose. This category emphasizes adaptive reuse projects involving former industrial, infrastructural, military, or healthcare structures that undergo substantial programmatic shifts. In architectural literature, examples abound; however, our selection focuses on projects that maintain a strong typological identity while confronting the challenges and qualities of deep architectural intervention. For instance, the Pousada de Viseu Hotel (1842–2023), formerly the Hospital de São Teotónio in Viseu, Portugal, designed by Gonçalo Byrne (Figure 3), exemplifies this typology-driven adaptation. In this category, transformations are crafted to meet the demands of new functional programs while also preserving or enhancing the building’s typological essence, even through extensive architectural modifications. Such adaptations imbue these buildings with a renewed resilience—what we term ‘typological affordance’—preparing them for future repurposing with minimal alteration. 

 

Fig. 3 Pousada de Viseu Hotel (1842–2023) in Viseu (Portugal) by Gonçalo Byrne.

3.3.3 Adapting Mono-functional Buildings – Life Cycles Under 100 Years

The third category explores case studies of mono-functional 20th-century buildings transformed through typologically focused design. These adaptive reuse projects impart new spatial identities, enhancing architectural character and extending the building’s lifespan by aligning its structure with a new program. The selected examples, such as culturally neutral commercial, retail, office, and warehouse buildings, demonstrate how generic spaces can gain distinct architectural qualities. This transformation often adds a layer of architectural generosity, positioning the buildings for future adaptability. For instance, the ED.G.E. (1973–2022) in Milan, Italy, by Onsitestudio (Figure 4), illustrates how typologically driven reuse can reconfigure a building’s footprint to enhance resilience and adaptability through architectural form. This design-driven approach highlights the value of typological clarity in adaptive reuse, meeting functional needs while embedding resilience as an affordance within architectural typology.

Fig. 4 The ED.G.E., a mixed-use multi-tenant complex (former Hotel Aerhotel built in 1973) in Milan by Onsitestudio.

Fig. 7 Stefano Sartorio: Orceana Park shop & fun, Orzinuovi 2004, Transformation Project within PhD workshop „Counterintuitive Typlogies“, PhD Progam AUID - Architectural Urban Interior Design, DAStU, Politecnico di Milano 2023.
 

Berke, D., De Monchaux Thomas, Transform: Promising Places, Second Chances, and the Architecture of Transformational Change, New York: The Monacelli Press 2023.

Douglas, J. 2006. Building Adaptation, Abingdon/New York: Routledge.

Gibson, J.J. 1977, The Theory of Affordances. In Perceiving, acting and knowing, ed. by R. Shaw and J. Bransford, Lawrence New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates: 67-81.

Goode, T. 1992, “Typological Theory in the United States: The Consumption of Architectural ‘Authenticity’”, Journal of Architectural Education, Sep., 1992, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Sep., 1992), pp. 2-13, Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1425235.

Griffero, T. 2016, Il Pensiero dei sensi. Atmosfere ed estetica patica, Milano: Guerini e Associati.

Jäger, F.P. 2010, Old and New, Basel: Birkhäuser.

Lanz, F., Pendlebury, J., 2022, Adaptive Reuse: A Critical Review. In The Journal of Architecture, n° 27 (2-3), 441-462.

Lechner, A. 2021. Thinking Design. Blueprint for an Architecture of Typology, Zurich: Park Books.

Lucan, J. 2012, Composition, Non-Composition: Architecture and Theory in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Century, London: Routledge.

Martí Arís, C. 2021, Variations of Identity. Type in architecture. Paris: Cosa Mentale (1st ed. Le variazioni dell’identità. Il tipo in architettura, Milan: Clup 1990).

Moneo R. 1978, On Typology, in Oppositions, n° 13, ed. by P. Eisenmann, K. Forster, K. Frampton, M. Gandelsonas, A. Vidler, New York: The MIT Press, 23-45.

Pevsner, N. 1979, A History of Building Types, Princeton/NJ; The Princeton University Press.

Plevoets, B., Van Cleempoel, K. 2019. Adaptive Reuse of the Built Heritage: Concepts and Cases of an Emerging Discipline, Abingdon/New York: Routledge.

Postiglione, G. 2018, L’intervento sull’esistente come riscrittura dello spazio. In Patrimoni Inattesi. Riusare per valorizzare, ed. by F. Lanz, Siracusa: Letteraventidue, 31-40.

Robiglio, M. 2017. RE–USA: 20 American Stories of Adaptive Reuse: A Toolkit for Post-Industrial Cities, Berlin: Jovis.

Rossi, A. 1966/1984, The Architecture of the City, Cambridge/MA: The MIT Press (1st ed. 1966 L’architettura della Città, Milan: Clup).

Rowe, C. 1976, The Mathematics of the Ideal Villa and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Schmidt, R., Austin, S. 2016. Adaptable Architecture. Theory and Practice, London: Routledge.

Schoonderbeek, M. 2022. Mapping in Architectural Discourse: Place-Time Discontinuities, Abingdon/New York: Routledge.

Scott, F. 2009. On Altering Architecture, Abingdon/New York: Routledge.

Stone, S. 2018, UnDoing Buildings: Adaptive Reuse and Cultural Memory, Oxfordshire: Routledge.

Stone, S. 2023, Notes towards a Definition of Adaptive Reuse. In Architecture, no. 3, 477-489 https://doi.org/10.3390/architecture3030026

Tafuri, M. 1980. Theories and History of Architecture, Translated by Giorgio Verrecchia, New York: Harper & Row (1968 Teorie e storia dell'architettura).

Van Ellen, L. et al., 2023. Adaptability of Space Habitats Using the Rhythmic Buildings Strategy. In Acta Astronautica, Vol. 211 (Oct. 2023), 764-780, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2023.06.045

Venturi, R. 1977. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. 2nd ed., New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1977.

Vidler, A. 1977, “The Third Typology”, in «Oppositions», no. 7, 1977,13-16.

Wilkinson, S. et.al. 2014, Sustainable Building Adaptation: Innovations in Decision-Making, Hoboken/NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Wong, L. 2016, Adaptive Reuse: Extending the Lives of Buildings, Basel: Birkhäuser.

Wong, L. 2023, Adaptive Reuse in Architecture – A Typological Index, Basel: Birkhäuser.