3 ms·

Christopher Alexander original pattern book was motivated by this sad state of contemporary architecture. Unfortunately architecture now is possibly even crappi

Christopher Alexander original pattern book was motivated by this sad state of contemporary architecture. Unfortunately architecture now is possibly even crappier than it was then but at least we got some new ideas in software development (the GoF book).

motohagiography 7y ago
Came here to reference Alexander as a reaction against modernist tyranny and say how it was his work that influenced software architects and designers today moreso than any of the modernists. Given buildings are necessarily expressions of economy, it is very difficult to discuss architecture without including moral and political questions. The post-modernist discussions of architecture go far in one direction, barely even bothing to discuss building, (see Robert Venturi's "Leaving Las Vegas," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Venturi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Venturi) When you look at the time and values of the Bauhaus, the architecture was also an expression of values, a rejection of craft, religion, nobility, hierarchy. It was the imposition of form on the landscape, and with it, society. It was without awe, reverence, respect, or recognition of anything greater than material human needs. Mies van Der Rohe's buildings at least have some nods to the origin of their materials, but today they seem quaint and sentimental for their naive and dated view of progress. Otherwise, both modernism and later brutalism were the expression of ideals we look back on today as abominations.
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  > Otherwise, both modernism and later brutalism were the expression of ideals we look back on today as abominations. Well, the resulting buildings are fairly or unfairly ( lots of things built much after the styles died out get mislabelled ) criticized for their looks, nobody really objects to their design principles. Hardly anyone on the brutalism hate-train even know what brutalism was about, and just object to any concrete facade, for example.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    > nobody really objects to their design principles. As a layman, I do not know, nor care, about the design principles involved. What I care about is how a building makes me feel and most modern everyday architecture seems to want me to feel bad.
nradov 7y ago
I read the book. He has a few good ideas but some of the patterns are frankly just stupid and would be miserable to live with in a real home. Don't take it too seriously.
- praptak 7y ago
  That's why he called it A pattern language. His main idea is to have one, not necessarily identical to the one he presented in the book.

motohagiography 7y ago

Came here to reference Alexander as a reaction against modernist tyranny and say how it was his work that influenced software architects and designers today moreso than any of the modernists. Given buildings are necessarily expressions of economy, it is very difficult to discuss architecture without including moral and political questions. The post-modernist discussions of architecture go far in one direction, barely even bothing to discuss building, (see Robert Venturi's "Leaving Las Vegas," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Venturi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Venturi) When you look at the time and values of the Bauhaus, the architecture was also an expression of values, a rejection of craft, religion, nobility, hierarchy. It was the imposition of form on the landscape, and with it, society. It was without awe, reverence, respect, or recognition of anything greater than material human needs. Mies van Der Rohe's buildings at least have some nods to the origin of their materials, but today they seem quaint and sentimental for their naive and dated view of progress. Otherwise, both modernism and later brutalism were the expression of ideals we look back on today as abominations.

SiempreViernes 7y ago
> Otherwise, both modernism and later brutalism were the expression of ideals we look back on today as abominations. Well, the resulting buildings are fairly or unfairly ( lots of things built much after the styles died out get mislabelled ) criticized for their looks, nobody really objects to their design principles. Hardly anyone on the brutalism hate-train even know what brutalism was about, and just object to any concrete facade, for example.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > nobody really objects to their design principles. As a layman, I do not know, nor care, about the design principles involved. What I care about is how a building makes me feel and most modern everyday architecture seems to want me to feel bad.

nradov 7y ago

I read the book. He has a few good ideas but some of the patterns are frankly just stupid and would be miserable to live with in a real home. Don't take it too seriously.

praptak 7y ago
That's why he called it A pattern language. His main idea is to have one, not necessarily identical to the one he presented in the book.