4 ms·

I also read the comments on youtube and one of them describes the series as a "terribly poor example of architectural information - so many unqualified statemen

I also read the comments on youtube and one of them describes the series as a "terribly poor example of architectural information - so many unqualified statements, generalizations and assumptions that are simply incorrect" From the same user: "Architects often concentrate more on the look of a building than its eventual use or function" That is a very bold statement..... To say that architects downplay the function of building is a ridiculous thing to say. "The central problem is that architects don't want change in their buildings, so they make it as difficult as possible." False. Architects are legally responsible to act for the betterment of their client and the general public. Being deliberately 'difficult' would result in an eventual loss of their license. "Changes and remodeling is bound to be ugly." Give me a break, have you seen the Louvre? Or any other updated building, ever?

madhadron 7y ago
You can ignore that user's comments. It's kind of like the venom that Christopher Alexander has gotten over the years. This book is a classic for a reason. Also, everyone focuses on his sendup of architectural failings, which is the beginning of the book, setting up the context for the rest. The rest is a really useful model for how to think about vernacular architecture over time, as well as an excellent read.
eternalban 7y ago
I remember back in Columbia GSAPP during Tschumi's reign I (unfortunately) had a studio with Stan Allen. The theme was "Brownian Motion" I kid you not, and he started us off with "consider a career in minor architecture" and how we really should be focusing on the "skin condition". Right around the corner, a young hot wunderkind from Princeton's studio was doing 'organic' forms that basically amounted to 'turd' forms. I came to architecture from Electrical Engineering. It was shocking to discover that, from a theoretical basis, there was no there there in Architecture. As far as I can tell, it is still a field caught in an identity crisis. CAD and advances in materials and structural engineering has definitely helped carry it along but fundamentally, Architecture is struggling to establish a sound theoretical foundation (beyond sound bites) to guide the design of buildings. At least Alexander, et al. put forth an actionable bottom-up program for design.

madhadron 7y ago

You can ignore that user's comments. It's kind of like the venom that Christopher Alexander has gotten over the years. This book is a classic for a reason. Also, everyone focuses on his sendup of architectural failings, which is the beginning of the book, setting up the context for the rest. The rest is a really useful model for how to think about vernacular architecture over time, as well as an excellent read.

eternalban 7y ago

I remember back in Columbia GSAPP during Tschumi's reign I (unfortunately) had a studio with Stan Allen. The theme was "Brownian Motion" I kid you not, and he started us off with "consider a career in minor architecture" and how we really should be focusing on the "skin condition". Right around the corner, a young hot wunderkind from Princeton's studio was doing 'organic' forms that basically amounted to 'turd' forms. I came to architecture from Electrical Engineering. It was shocking to discover that, from a theoretical basis, there was no there there in Architecture. As far as I can tell, it is still a field caught in an identity crisis. CAD and advances in materials and structural engineering has definitely helped carry it along but fundamentally, Architecture is struggling to establish a sound theoretical foundation (beyond sound bites) to guide the design of buildings. At least Alexander, et al. put forth an actionable bottom-up program for design.