There are few types of terminology for architecture. The first one “saw architecture as imitative of the fundamental order of Nature itself, llied the primitive rusticity of the hut to an ideal of perfect geometry.” (Vidler, 289) The architecture in this kind of typology uses their structures to form a natural creature like a tree or a flower which is very close to the society. The architecture is adapting to the environment, and finally be a part of the environment without breaking its original feeling.
The second kind of typology, it’s like “the pyramid of production from the smallest tool to the most complex machine was now seen as analogous to the link between the column, the house and the city.” (Vidler, 291) I think this is an approaching to modern city planning and architecture. It’s like the Renaissance of the idea of design, to make the architecture from old-version to modernism. I believe Bauhaus is one of the best representatives of this typology, which is a combination of machine and traditional architecture. And the final typology is to make architecture an architecture. Not like any other object, but a unique structure without responding other creature.
Vidler, Anthony. The Third Typology and Other Essays. 1977.
Mies van der Rohe, The End of the Bauhaus. 1951