4 ms·

I think the linguistic equivalent would be a verbose sentence with gratuitous use of adjectives, several inane parenthetical interjections, and punctuation misu

by dqv 8y ago

I think the linguistic equivalent would be a verbose sentence with gratuitous use of adjectives, several inane parenthetical interjections, and punctuation misuse. It's okay if I'm reading a letter from a friend or family; otherwise, I want to read something that has good linguistic flow. It's not a judgement against people who like McMansions. It's a guide for people like me: I see a house, find it offputting, but I can't figure out why and what to look for to get a house that isn't. She gives me, a layperson, the information I need to pick a house I'll like. Her blog actually has articles that go into detail about different architectural periods and the elements of architecture. There's nothing wrong with liking McMansions, but I want a cute house, not too big, that I love on the outside and the inside.

theoh 8y ago
You're right that this is about judgements of value. But part of the problem is that architecture can't be reduced to bite-sized principles and quick-reference rules of thumb. Architecture is so much more complex and nuanced than that. Even "A Pattern Language" falls into the trap of providing reductive prescriptions. Ask literally any architect what they think of Christopher Alexander's actual built work, and they will either dismiss it or (more likely) won't even have heard of it.
- dqv 8y ago
  I wouldn't say Wagner is really reducing it so much as teaching the layperson to explore their own conception of a house and why a house design doesn't quite coalesce. She didn't teach me to identify that a Frankfurt house must have a wingdar, a gongle, and a shivbopped roof. It just taught me to look closer at all the different elements that make my brain say "that's a house" vs "that's a weird house"
  - theoh 8y ago
    Even to think that it's a matter of a shopping list of elements is reductive. Architecture is holistic. While it's obviously great to be made aware of and be able to analyse various standard components and their relationships, components/patterns are not the story. It's not engineering.

by dqv 8y ago

theoh 8y ago

You're right that this is about judgements of value. But part of the problem is that architecture can't be reduced to bite-sized principles and quick-reference rules of thumb. Architecture is so much more complex and nuanced than that. Even "A Pattern Language" falls into the trap of providing reductive prescriptions. Ask literally any architect what they think of Christopher Alexander's actual built work, and they will either dismiss it or (more likely) won't even have heard of it.

dqv 8y ago
I wouldn't say Wagner is really reducing it so much as teaching the layperson to explore their own conception of a house and why a house design doesn't quite coalesce. She didn't teach me to identify that a Frankfurt house must have a wingdar, a gongle, and a shivbopped roof. It just taught me to look closer at all the different elements that make my brain say "that's a house" vs "that's a weird house"
- theoh 8y ago
  Even to think that it's a matter of a shopping list of elements is reductive. Architecture is holistic. While it's obviously great to be made aware of and be able to analyse various standard components and their relationships, components/patterns are not the story. It's not engineering.