One of the biggest problems with typology is that a lot of people go by "Sensors can be either smart or dumb, but Intuitives can only be smart, so if you meet a dumb person, they're a Sensor." And they think they're being very open-minded by saying that Sensors can be smart.
On an unrelated note I'm reviewing the existing design of a 45-year-old building that a government board bought from a charity. They're looking to re-purpose the building and upgrade it. Another engineering firm did a detailed facility condition assessment five years ago and came up with a "Facility Condition Index" number of 99.8%. What is 'FCI'? It's a ratio of the cost of maintenance to the cost of replacing the building with a new one. An FCI of 99.8% means the maintenance (and this is only over the course of five years, mind you) would cost 99.8% of what building an entirely new building would cost. Or in other words building a new building would only cost about 0.2% more than maintaining the existing one.
A FCI figure less than 5% is considered 'good'. 5-10% is considered 'fair'. Over 10% is considered 'poor'. And this building is 99.8%.
EDIT: Oh and you know the place is classy when the guy reviewing the building systems makes note of drug users and prostitutes in his report.
There must be some purpose, they dont want to build on green belt for instance or have to regenerate a brown site or have some sort of social agenda like moving on or eliminating the drug users and prostitution.