3 ms·
Alexander himself agrees with you. The pattern language approach in his hands and in the hands of some architects was a tool that produced wonderful buildings.
by madhadron 8y ago
Alexander himself agrees with you. The pattern language approach in his hands and in the hands of some architects was a tool that produced wonderful buildings. In many hands, the patterns were there and the buildings were still miserable. The patterns were necessary but not sufficient. I posted a comment elsewhere in the thread referring to his recent work, 'The Nature of Order', where he thinks, after forty years of work, that he's figured out the sufficient part as well.
- theoh 8y agoHere is an impressive review of a huge number of scholarly critiques of Christopher Alexander's work: https://cityterritoryarchitecture.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40410-017-0073-1 https://cityterritoryarchitecture.springeropen.com/articles/... Personally, I've never been able to take him seriously enough to work up the patience to analyse his work to anything like that level of depth. His project is hubristic.
- madhadron 8y agoI got half way through that article, and everything up to that point had been strawmen, so I gave up. As for hubris, what is hubristic about trying to figure out how to build well?