8 ms·

> The theories that are taught in architecture schools today are of a different sort, and in the belief that the field of architecture should be grounded in int

> The theories that are taught in architecture schools today are of a different sort, and in the belief that the field of architecture should be grounded in intellectual speculation, rather than pragmatic observation, students are more likely to be assigned French post-structuralist texts than A Pattern Language. Which is a shame. It's just astonishing, decades after Jane Jacobs' The Death and Life of Great American Cities, that pragmatic observation is still on the margins. What, a half-century of abject failure in building and neighbourhood design isn't enough to demonstrate the fundamental wrongheadedness of dogmatic, a priori design principles?

notaddicted 17y ago
Would you advocate the same change in Computer Science education? Enough intellectual speculation: Java schools for all. To make progress, you have to try something new.
- RyanMcGreal 17y ago
  > Enough intellectual speculation: Java schools for all. A monolithic, one-size-fits-all approach is hardly consistent with an evidence-based approach that considers the needs of individual cases.
david927 17y ago
It's a political problem; the democratization of principles. Sometimes what everyone likes isn't what's best for everyone. It's interesting to note that Kent Beck, who brought Alexander to the attention of Erich Gamma, did so with the intention that it could be used for interface design (if I remember right).
donaldc 17y ago
Such is the power of institutional, organizational, and societal inertia.
Skeuomorph 17y ago
There's an unforeseen problem with well patterned livable houses--they often don't sell well to conventional real estate buyers. If you need to relocate or access equity quickly, you're stuck with an remarkable property but buyers looking for McMansions. Buyers that do drop by out of curiosity comment with gems such as, "We could never live here, the master bath needs to be as big as the bedroom." Seems as though the only way to move such a property is to offer it so far below market that people become willing to compromise and consider the more livable home instead of yet another generic "keeping up with the Joneses" colonial: http://images.google.com/images?q=colonial%20house http://images.google.com/images?q=colonial%20house (exteriors) It's galling, because such easily substitutable boxes have little intrinsic value beyond market. The cost to build a colonial is quite low compared to the cost of building, for example, "... varying ceiling heights between large and small rooms to create different degrees of intimacy." One eye-line in my home reveals 8 ceiling heights, correlating to the intimacy of the spaces below them. It's extraordinary, but generic buyers want five bedrooms with full baths so what should be livable spaces end up the size of closets. What's worse, when buyers today see the prices of McMansions plunging, they expect to see the price of a well patterned home (that may have cost 5x - 8x as much to build) also plunge, despite the more complex home already having a replacement cost higher than its asking price, price of materials and labor having risen. (PS. Serious inquiries welcome for a well patterned home a commuter train ride from Manhattan.)
- kurtosis 17y ago
  I agree with you nearly 100%, but why do you think the market fails to recognize the higher value of such a home?
  - mbrubeck 17y ago
    Custom-designed or heavily modified buildings tend to be quirky; they are designed around the particular tastes and requirements of the previous owners. Generic houses are more one-size-fits-all. They may not fit any particular person as well, but you know what you're getting and there are certain baseline expectations that won't be violated. To some extent, people actually will pay for quirkiness. It can be easier to find a home you love in a neighborhood with a mix of houses of different ages and styles and owner-modifications. Old houses can be more valuable partly because they've been modified over the years to be more livable. But for houses that are farther from the norm, it's harder to match the right house to the right buyer. (I say this as the owner of an 80-year-old house in Seattle with some very odd changes made by previous occupants.)

notaddicted 17y ago

Would you advocate the same change in Computer Science education? Enough intellectual speculation: Java schools for all. To make progress, you have to try something new.

RyanMcGreal 17y ago
> Enough intellectual speculation: Java schools for all. A monolithic, one-size-fits-all approach is hardly consistent with an evidence-based approach that considers the needs of individual cases.

david927 17y ago

It's a political problem; the democratization of principles. Sometimes what everyone likes isn't what's best for everyone. It's interesting to note that Kent Beck, who brought Alexander to the attention of Erich Gamma, did so with the intention that it could be used for interface design (if I remember right).

donaldc 17y ago

Such is the power of institutional, organizational, and societal inertia.

Skeuomorph 17y ago

There's an unforeseen problem with well patterned livable houses--they often don't sell well to conventional real estate buyers. If you need to relocate or access equity quickly, you're stuck with an remarkable property but buyers looking for McMansions. Buyers that do drop by out of curiosity comment with gems such as, "We could never live here, the master bath needs to be as big as the bedroom." Seems as though the only way to move such a property is to offer it so far below market that people become willing to compromise and consider the more livable home instead of yet another generic "keeping up with the Joneses" colonial: http://images.google.com/images?q=colonial%20house http://images.google.com/images?q=colonial%20house (exteriors) It's galling, because such easily substitutable boxes have little intrinsic value beyond market. The cost to build a colonial is quite low compared to the cost of building, for example, "... varying ceiling heights between large and small rooms to create different degrees of intimacy." One eye-line in my home reveals 8 ceiling heights, correlating to the intimacy of the spaces below them. It's extraordinary, but generic buyers want five bedrooms with full baths so what should be livable spaces end up the size of closets. What's worse, when buyers today see the prices of McMansions plunging, they expect to see the price of a well patterned home (that may have cost 5x - 8x as much to build) also plunge, despite the more complex home already having a replacement cost higher than its asking price, price of materials and labor having risen. (PS. Serious inquiries welcome for a well patterned home a commuter train ride from Manhattan.)

kurtosis 17y ago
I agree with you nearly 100%, but why do you think the market fails to recognize the higher value of such a home?
- mbrubeck 17y ago
  Custom-designed or heavily modified buildings tend to be quirky; they are designed around the particular tastes and requirements of the previous owners. Generic houses are more one-size-fits-all. They may not fit any particular person as well, but you know what you're getting and there are certain baseline expectations that won't be violated. To some extent, people actually will pay for quirkiness. It can be easier to find a home you love in a neighborhood with a mix of houses of different ages and styles and owner-modifications. Old houses can be more valuable partly because they've been modified over the years to be more livable. But for houses that are farther from the norm, it's harder to match the right house to the right buyer. (I say this as the owner of an 80-year-old house in Seattle with some very odd changes made by previous occupants.)