Where's the beef?

Peter Lindberg links to this bit of puffery .

MY bs-detector goes off at a high-pitch whenever I hear someone say that

[a] genuinely new way of thinking about the world cannot arise from sustainable design thinking or from any other design idea. Sustainable architecture , like all the other innovative design movements, has merely made a small side step which allows the far deeper non-living processes of contemporary development to continue. All that happens when these world-changing ideas are attempted within the existing paradigm, is that nothing really changes. That is because it is not the designs, but the processes, which must first change, and until that happens no significant change will occur.

Now Christopher Alexander is (or at least was) one of my culture-heroes. City Comforts is clearly and gratefully inspired by and even derivative of Alexander's Pattern Language; and I am always willing to listen to what he has to say. But I am, at the outset, leery of people who say that one thing cannot happen until something else happens. And that something else is usually of such momentous gravity (e.g. people become "morally better") that the whole thing ends up as an excuse for no action whatsoever. For example, suppose a socialist had said in 1953 that no progress could be made in racial relations in the USA until socialism happened. Well, that would have been a good excuse to do nothing, or to work on solutions so global that they would require "revolution."

Well, what I learned -- not perhaps what he meant to teach -- from Alexander's Pattern Language is that a better world is made of lots of little pieces and that's it's more to the point to satisfice than to optimize. Perhaps that's why Alexander is doing a second book? Too many people missed the point. Of course I really didn't miss the point; I just ignored the strictures (e.g. high-rise living is bad for the mental health -- see page 114 on "Four-Story Limit") which I thought from my own experience to be silly and focussed on the brilliance. Alas. He found me out.

Now none of the above goes to the book per se; I haven't read it and Alexander's claims discourage me. Will I read the book? Oh I imagine in due course that I will at least glance at it, though I'd prefer to let others read it first and encourage me with genuine and specific enthusiasm.

But maybe I am a small-c "conservative" and it makes me nervous when I hear someone, anyone, trumpeting "big changes."

Comments

[Matthew Amster-Burton]

I've read most of books one and two of NOO (hey, fun acronym), and they were somewhat less new-agey than I expected. That is to say, I expected that I would get a few pages in and want to throw the thing across the room, and I actually made it most of the way through. Many of the photographs of Alexander's and other architects' work are very nice.

But you're right--it's a Big Idea book, and whether you think his big idea is right or hope so, it doesn't matter, because it's utopian. Then again, I hear the next volume has good tips on renovating your kitchen.

[David Sucher]

Great!
What is the Big Idea?

[ian]

I haven't read these books, but I fully intend to do so - nothing I have read by Alexander so far has been less than stimulating and despite the apparent appeal to the 'Big Idea' I expect these books to be no different.

As I understand the idea of new paradigms, however, they emerge 'after the fact' - some people may lead the pack but there eventually comes a tipping point (to appropriate a different metaphor) when the new paradigm becomes the norm. So, whatever _Alexander_ is saying about the sequence of events needed, that does not of itself invalidate his analysis. The strength of his ideas may paradoxically come from their appropriation into the existing pardigm, thereby triggering the change he seeks.

I'll reserve judgement on those ideas until I've read the new books.

[chris]

The big idea - or shift - is two fold.
Alexander proposes to first expand the scientific method by inserting the observer as an integral element and then lift up from the ground the important role of common human value in mindset and actions.

Some questions asked.

What is beauty? Is it even important? Why?
Is it the same for everyone? How can you & I create something beautiful? Does it make sense to do this everyday? What is the impact of non-beauty? Is the process really what defines the outcome?

Some questions answered.

In the end, he has introduced a theory that allows us to see space and matter as personal - inextricably linked to us.

[joe]

The comments above are symptomatic of the way Alexander's ideas are received: they are supposed to refer mainly to abstractions, and are accompanied by nice pictures.

Another description of the "big idea" contained in NOO: 1) "Design" can't presently accomplish its goals, because no matter how good the design might be, procedurally separating "Design" from other facets of building (i.e. the later "Construction" phase which realizes the design) is a reflection of the fundamental problem that Design is trying to address. 2) Attention must be focused on the importance of process and sequence and the feedback loops between alternating elements of what we now think of as "Design" and "Construction" (and other "Fields"; these two are merely the most obvious). 3) Once this approach is taken to architectural problems, we realize that it can have profound impact on social problems generally.

And I've got to say, David, if a man is truly one of your culture "heroes" you don't post such a dismissal of his ambitious tenth book without reading it. (The "Tall Buildings Make People Crazy" pattern was an especially curious one to choose to dismiss outright, considering that it was one of the few that had objective statistical proof -- with a peer-reviewed reference!) In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya ...

[joe]

Quoting from the original post:

"Well, what I learned -- not perhaps what he meant to teach -- from Alexander's Pattern Language is that a better world is made of lots of little pieces and that's it's more to the point to satisfice than to optimize. Perhaps that's why Alexander is doing a second book?"

Not only is "a better world" made of lots of little pieces, but, according to Pattern Language, every world is made this way. Frank Lloyd Wright, Mies van de Rohe, anonymous suburban strip mall contractors, all follow one of many possible Pattern Languages. Though Alexander's demonstration example is an idealized Neo-Vernacular Pattern Language, he could just as well have applied the methodology to generate working descriptions of the different schools of modern design.

A new methodology provides new ways of looking at old problems, which then suggest new solutions. So, while it is quite right to say that Pattern Language suggests significant small improvements can be made by applying the ideal patterns individually, Pattern Language also says one must begin to analyze the patterns one already uses, that constitute one's actual "Language". One will invariably find that one's building practice (and building practice generally) generates many extremely negative patterns that have not been addressed due to lack of proper conceptual tools for recognizing them. The split between Design/Construction, for example, encourages "Designers" to take for granted, perhaps without even consciously recognizing it, that there will be lots of ugly and ineffectual spaces in the built environment that are the responsibility of "Construction", and "nothing can be done".

Recognizing that something *can* be done is the "utopian" thread of Alexander's later works, which categorically turns off some -- apparently innately conservative -- people! :-)

[David Sucher]

Joe, if you would please go back and read my post, I specifically was speaking to his own puffery at Amazon, which I did read and which I maintain, especially in light of the non-descriptions of Alexander's supoosed "paradigm breakthrough." I offer no opinion of the book as I have not read it and unless someone starts to offer some real susbtance, I will not. I am not interested in utopia; the idea bores me and the true-believers who advocate it scare me.

[joe]

"Proposition X is extremely ambitious, and attracts the interest of irritating people, therefore not-X."

This is a form of philosophical proof I apply constantly myself, so I can hardly gainsay it. However, I find it strange that anyone who really found merit in the first book would not have been interested enough try and understand the exact nature of that merit. Your remarks suggest that you have assumed Alexander put the original Patterns together by some kind of lucky accident and then lost his mind. (Yes, I know there are many examples of the latter, but as a student of any field it's good practice to try to identify exactly at what point the Seminal Thinkers lost their minds.)

[joe]

BTW I will freely admit that Alexander's rhetorical strategies, in hindsight, create difficulties for partisans such as myself. Such as:

(Well-informed, Mildly Libertarian Critic): What is the big idea?

(Alexander Partisan): Design and Construction must be criticized simultaneously.

(WMLC): But where is the substance?

(AP): How can you ask that question? Here is a book-length example of a combined criticism of Design and Construction together, with extensive practical considerations.

(WMLC): What's with the 200 pages in the middle about Turkish rugs?

[Chris D.]

This is a link to a very good review of the book(s) and concepts introduced by Alexander. Worth a read.

http://www.natureoforder.com/library/the-architect-of-life.htm

[Chris D.]

maybe this link works better?:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ArchitectofLife.php