It is a generally accepted idea that typology is an essential element in the disciplinary dimension of architecture. The concept of typology, in its most common definition, is sufficiently malleable to cover a wide range of uses, but it is also this vagueness that favours misunderstandings in the use of the terms that make up the typological lexicon. On the one hand, typology is used to organise knowledge and create processes of classification of a variety of artefacts, promoting a sense of unity across histories and geographies; on the other hand, typology can also be used to define, implicitly or explicitly, the processes of reasoning involved in the conception and design of those same artefacts. In relation to this second dimension - an operative typological reasoning - this paper will examine the work of the French duo Lacaton & Vassal and propose a reading through the prism of type. Through a careful engagement with the discourse that characterises their work, and through an analysis of three early projects, the presentation will argue that it is possible to identify an action of tipological transfer that has profoundly influenced the way the practice conceives architecture. This action is not new and precedents can be found since the 19th century. Finally, in order to contribute to the debate on the typological lexicon and to explore the holistic dimension of Lacaton & Vassal's tipological transfer, type can overcome the limits of spatial structure, functional labelling or typal image. If typology is an essential element, it is necessary to re-examine the notion of type in order to understand its usefulness in the face of contemporary challenges and, ultimately, to take a position on Rafael Moneo's question: "Does it make sense to speak about type today?"