6 ms·
Philosophy of Architecture (2015)
- tkyjonathan 7y agoI feel that philosophy of systems and theory of constraints would be a better philosophy to use with computer systems.
- asplake 7y agoCouldn’t help but search the text for references to Christopher Alexander (and they’re there). Recommend The Timeless Way of Building - not just for the patterns stuff that so inspired the tech community but for metaphors, many of which translate into other domains. I channel one such - ‘wholehearted’ - in my mission statement [1] and branding [1] https://www.agendashift.com/about/wholehearted https://www.agendashift.com/about/wholehearted
- bordercases 7y agoChristopher Alexander is one architect with one view. I used to think he was the end all but he's not. There are or ought to be as many approaches to architecture as there are architectural projects – because architecture is a practice that first and foremost fits a solution to a context, if there ought to be a solution whatsoever. Fundamentally architecture is about synthesizing integrative visions: everything else follows from this. Patterns are not necessarily wrong, but presume a universality in architectural problems from the outset that can narrow your perception of what ought to be done too quickly. Alexander's "avoid symmetry-breaking" as a design principle is germane across almost all styles of architecture though. Whether or not an architect likes to obey, ignore, or disrupt symmetries is the big tell as to what school of thought they subscribe to.
- asplake 7y agoOh completely! But credit where credit is due...
- lordleft 7y agoArchitecture matters. When I walk into a brutalist space, I feel minuscule and irrelevant. When I walk into spaces that I (subjectively) regard as a beautiful, I feel changed, for the better.
- homonculus1 7y ago>When I walk into a brutalist space, I feel minuscule and irrelevant. That's a good feeling! Brutalist structures are like alien megaliths. You see one and go "Holy shit, the world is full of big mysterious things!" I contrast it with the mall or the fishbowl office building. Those are spaces designed to soothe your every personal need, but the subtle purpose is really to extract value from you. They are superficially pleasant but devoid of meaning. Brutalism on the other hand is a call to adventure, and refuses to coddle anybody. But maybe you're thinking more of like a Japanese garden, something truly beautiful and contemplative. That's the opposite of Brutalism in a good way, and both have their place. I just hate it when people reject brutalism for being "spiritless" yet welcome the most sanitized, commercialized alternatives.
- bordercases 7y agoBrutalism is extremely unimaginative with its one trick being an upset of scale, proportion and balance. It coupled onto the International Style precisely because it is devoid of content.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoWhen lordleft talked about spaces that were beautiful, I interpreted that as meaning something like a cathedral, not a mall. Something like an alien megalith is fine... to visit. I don't want to live in one, though. I don't want to work in one.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoI'm with you on brutalism. It makes a space in which human beings don't fit. So who are they building for, if not humans? Concrete mixers?
- markandrewj 7y agoIf you are interested in this subject, I would recommend 'The Architecture of Happiness' by Alain De Botton, and 'Status Anxiety' (even though the a later is not focused on architecture, it is complimentary). The books were also made into documentaries that are available on Alain De Bottom's YouTube channel.
- markandrewj 7y agoauto-correct strikes again...