3 ms·

Christopher Alexander (the architect and design theorist mentioned in the beginning of the article) wrote at length (and depth!) on the concepts underlying the

Christopher Alexander (the architect and design theorist mentioned in the beginning of the article) wrote at length (and depth!) on the concepts underlying the sense of "liveliness" or "life" in spaces, and "quality" in general. He was pretty successful at capturing it too; his "Pattern Language" describes well a lot of the aspects that make spaces and structures coherent vs not. Whenever I see this stuff discussed, the conversation rarely plumbs the depths. But even in this article -- just look at the photos. The buildings accused of being ornamented -- they're elaborate in a specific way; the complications aren't there just for the sake of adding something, they reiterate certain structural themes, create depth, a sense of connection at variety of scales. Compare to the "unadorned" buildings -- dead, flat, boring, generic, your attention slips off them like water off an oiled pan. What I often muse about as someone who builds software, are the parallels between the concerns of the architect and those of a UX designer. We've all seen styles and themes come and go, and some comparisons beg to be drawn. The flat design trends of recent years match the anonymous glass facades housing the FAANGs. Skeuomorphic interfaces as degenerate and overburdened as baroque twirls at their peak. Etc etc. But underlying these comparisons is always the qualification of purpose. The flat and skeuo interfaces fall short precisely because they're decorated (or, undecorated) for style's sake, there's a disconnect from function - even if the function (especially if!) is to make the person faced with them feel a certain way. Over the many years, the only interfaces I've seen fulfill their mission of connecting with the user, creating a unique space that immerses and engages, are those in games. Finely crafted one-offs, thematic, memorable, full of intricate detail, intimately connected to the subjects of the interaction, the mission, the overall story of the game. They're coherent, involved, and what communicates that connection are the many details, specific and deliberate. Yes at first glance they're ornamental, but reveal themselves to be deeply functional after a longer look.

pmontra 3y ago
Skeuomorphic interfaces educated people to click for the first time on buttons which resembled buttons in real life. Having to click on unadorned words would have been too difficult. Which words are to click, which words are only to read? It still is difficult at times but 30+ years of collective education makes it possible.
apineda 3y ago
Could you recommend any particular readings for Christopher Alexander?
- VoodooJuJu 3y ago
  A Pattern Language
- Duanemclemore 3y ago
  You can't go wrong! His most important treatise - and the book I talk about more with UX people and software devs more than architects even - is A Pattern Language. Basically the deal with Alexander is he was a VERY early adopter of computerization in architecture. He made some kinda... missteps? about systematization in his earliest writings. Then walked it all back / developed it with "A City is Not a Tree" talking about graphs and urban organization. His arc from there was constantly deeper into trying to make sense of how information science techniques could be applied, most notably in A Pattern Language and the case study of its application, The Oregon Project. Then, his "magnum opus" was a development on that where he tried to fill in the gaps that A Pattern Language left was A Timeless Way of Building. If you don't want to get too deep, I'd stick with A Pattern Language.
- btbuildem 3y ago
  There are a few! Depending on what aspect / approach you prefer. These four are my favourites: "The Nature of Order" (four books!) is the most extensive - beautiful, comprehensive, a little overwhelming, he lays out a broad philosophy of how built up spaces can foster life. Lots of visual examples, but gets pretty conceptual and abstract too. "The Timeless Way of Building" is a bit more focused, centers around the architectural concerns. More compact, more practical than the Nature of Order. "Pattern Language" -- you'll see that one suggested a lot. He lays out the concepts of interacting patterns ("best practices") that act on a variety of scales, some more generic, some more abstract. It's less of a read than a reference, but a few chapters lay out the motivations. "Notes on the Synthesis of Form" - the most far out one of the four suggestions, abstract, philosophical, a rarefied read. Dissects the essence of concepts, defines what "form" is -- fascinating read for sure, and not too long.
gwern 3y ago
> the complications aren't there just for the sake of adding something, they reiterate certain structural themes, create depth, a sense of connection at variety of scales. Compare to the "unadorned" buildings -- dead, flat, boring, generic, your attention slips off them like water off an oiled pan. Exactly. Consider the very first photograph, which highlights the owls: I couldn't actually see the books, but I could see the owls, and my instant thought was, 'I bet this is a library'. Because owls are so strongly associated with wisdom, Athena, books, and learning. Far from being useless, they are subtly serving as a UI, drawing on a recognition memory: even 30 years from now, should I happen to be walking through Chicago, I will probably recognize the library as a library solely from the owl-book cues. I'm reminded of Tufte's 'data ink' phrase: Tufte visualizations can often be quite beautiful, but they are not necessarily minimal; they could be made simpler by removing 'ornamentation', but only by also losing subtle 'data' or theme. (You can have plenty of style or decoration, it just has to mean something.) Whereas, in the anti-human boxes prized by modernism, they are interchangeable, meaningless, big ugly dumb boxes, designed for humans and things to be shuffled in and out of at the convenience of the powers that be - cubicles writ large.
scrumper 3y ago
> a sense of connection at variety of scales. This is the heart of the matter for me. The article talks about how a well-ornamented building reveals more detail as you get closer. I see that kind of fractal richness as the building repaying and thanking the city for giving it the space to exist. It's interesting at every distance, aware of its immensity and respectful of the people who have no choice but to look at it, offering something for the eye of anyone in line of sight. Glass skyscrapers and unadorned buildings don't have that quality: you get the same cold-shouldered inscrutability whether you're ten feet or ten blocks away. They're fundamentally rude. In the city, but not of it.

pmontra 3y ago

Skeuomorphic interfaces educated people to click for the first time on buttons which resembled buttons in real life. Having to click on unadorned words would have been too difficult. Which words are to click, which words are only to read? It still is difficult at times but 30+ years of collective education makes it possible.

apineda 3y ago

Could you recommend any particular readings for Christopher Alexander?

VoodooJuJu 3y ago
A Pattern Language
Duanemclemore 3y ago
You can't go wrong! His most important treatise - and the book I talk about more with UX people and software devs more than architects even - is A Pattern Language. Basically the deal with Alexander is he was a VERY early adopter of computerization in architecture. He made some kinda... missteps? about systematization in his earliest writings. Then walked it all back / developed it with "A City is Not a Tree" talking about graphs and urban organization. His arc from there was constantly deeper into trying to make sense of how information science techniques could be applied, most notably in A Pattern Language and the case study of its application, The Oregon Project. Then, his "magnum opus" was a development on that where he tried to fill in the gaps that A Pattern Language left was A Timeless Way of Building. If you don't want to get too deep, I'd stick with A Pattern Language.
btbuildem 3y ago
There are a few! Depending on what aspect / approach you prefer. These four are my favourites: "The Nature of Order" (four books!) is the most extensive - beautiful, comprehensive, a little overwhelming, he lays out a broad philosophy of how built up spaces can foster life. Lots of visual examples, but gets pretty conceptual and abstract too. "The Timeless Way of Building" is a bit more focused, centers around the architectural concerns. More compact, more practical than the Nature of Order. "Pattern Language" -- you'll see that one suggested a lot. He lays out the concepts of interacting patterns ("best practices") that act on a variety of scales, some more generic, some more abstract. It's less of a read than a reference, but a few chapters lay out the motivations. "Notes on the Synthesis of Form" - the most far out one of the four suggestions, abstract, philosophical, a rarefied read. Dissects the essence of concepts, defines what "form" is -- fascinating read for sure, and not too long.

gwern 3y ago

> the complications aren't there just for the sake of adding something, they reiterate certain structural themes, create depth, a sense of connection at variety of scales. Compare to the "unadorned" buildings -- dead, flat, boring, generic, your attention slips off them like water off an oiled pan. Exactly. Consider the very first photograph, which highlights the owls: I couldn't actually see the books, but I could see the owls, and my instant thought was, 'I bet this is a library'. Because owls are so strongly associated with wisdom, Athena, books, and learning. Far from being useless, they are subtly serving as a UI, drawing on a recognition memory: even 30 years from now, should I happen to be walking through Chicago, I will probably recognize the library as a library solely from the owl-book cues. I'm reminded of Tufte's 'data ink' phrase: Tufte visualizations can often be quite beautiful, but they are not necessarily minimal; they could be made simpler by removing 'ornamentation', but only by also losing subtle 'data' or theme. (You can have plenty of style or decoration, it just has to mean something.) Whereas, in the anti-human boxes prized by modernism, they are interchangeable, meaningless, big ugly dumb boxes, designed for humans and things to be shuffled in and out of at the convenience of the powers that be - cubicles writ large.

scrumper 3y ago

> a sense of connection at variety of scales. This is the heart of the matter for me. The article talks about how a well-ornamented building reveals more detail as you get closer. I see that kind of fractal richness as the building repaying and thanking the city for giving it the space to exist. It's interesting at every distance, aware of its immensity and respectful of the people who have no choice but to look at it, offering something for the eye of anyone in line of sight. Glass skyscrapers and unadorned buildings don't have that quality: you get the same cold-shouldered inscrutability whether you're ten feet or ten blocks away. They're fundamentally rude. In the city, but not of it.