4 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoEven 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.