Now that we've covered all four of the Norberg-Schulz types of landscapes perhaps it is the opportunity of clarifying what sort of 'types' they are supposed to be.

 Jorgeg titled the Thread on this subject as "Style in Landscape"; browsing through Google I find that also most of the citations indeed refer  to the four N-S types as "landscape styles". However,  reading Genius Loci, the book where N-S originally developed his ideas about the subject, I found that there is little reference if at all to "landscape styles".

    I am sort of puzzled about how it came to be that the four types became 'styles' when N-S ideas were quoted or interpreted by other authors. It was generally accepted once that all the arts reflect one of two stylistic tendencies: the classical or the romantic. Since N-S choose to call two of his types with those names, perhaps others assumed (rightly or wrongly) that he was talking about styles?

    And, if not styles, what 'type of types' are they?   Classes, categories, genres, kinds? It might be, as they say, a matter of Semantics. But, in my view, semantic distinctions are all important if we are trying to understand a subject. A point worth discussing?