3 ms·
This is basically 'systems theory', which was all the rage in the 60s and 70s, and Christopher Alexander's work was linked to. There's a reason it didn't take o
by twelvechairs 12y ago
This is basically 'systems theory', which was all the rage in the 60s and 70s, and Christopher Alexander's work was linked to. There's a reason it didn't take off as much as expected - not because the overarching premise is wrong (that its possible to describe all things, even design, in a systematic way), but just that its incredibly difficult to the point of impossible for people to do so.
- state 12y agoRight: that's what I was trying to imply. It's very appealing to think this way, but the only missing piece is how you actually do it.
- dorian 12y agoNotes on the Synthesis of Form is a lot more systems-theoretic. The algorithm is more or less recursive min-cut partitioning which is now well-researched. There is, however, a real logistical problem is getting the input requirements, massaging them to identical conceptual scope, and then connecting them together so you can perform said decomposition. That is a massive, massive bottleneck. That's why it's so telling that Alexander abandoned the technique in his thesis in favour of using the building site itself, in effect, as a computational medium.