Christopher Alexander, 1936-2022

[SDR]

An obituary was published in today's SF Chronicle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander

S

[outside in]

so glad you posted this. C.A. wrote some wonderful books that had a profound influence on many architects. I wish more architects would practice his teachings as the world would be a much better place.

[Roderick Grant]

I read Alexander's books centuries ago. The only problem I had with them is the quality of the finished products. Interesting philosophy. Fell short in execution.

[SDR]

I may have read only "A City is Not a Tree" and parts of "A Pattern Language." Somewhere in one of those books is Alexander's account of a moment in his early design education, presumably in London or Cambridge, where a professor assigned the design of a single-family home. Our young student was at a loss as to how to come up with something appropriate, using the received wisdom of contemporary architectural grammar and vocabulary---something anyway that would appeal to the taste of the instructor. In desperation he threw together a model that would probably be called Minimalism but which was in any event a cynical if not a sarcastic response. The professor was over the moon, effusive in his praise, and the immediate and lasting lesson for Alexander was that modernism was a sham.

S

[jay]

Interesting stuff, SDR... One could wonder if Alexander drew too general a conclusion about this "sham" by supposing his instructor's opinion was the judgment of Modernism itself..? And can't a seemingly "non-serious" design application result in something good, regardless?

I read two of Alexander's books a few years ago. I enjoyed both of them. I was excited to see his architectural work. I've never found very much on his projects, but here's a couple links:
https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/de ... -projects/
https://www.berkeleyside.org/2018/04/14 ... -in-albany

What strikes me is how much of "Pattern Language" feels as if it's compatible to Wrightian sensibilities. While I wouldn't have thought Alexander's own work would be "organic", I also wasn't prepared for how "PoMo" it seemed, at least in my opinion. (My "definition" of PoMo = Architecture for architectural theorists, META architecture.) I felt Pattern Language had a rather humanist/naturalist agenda, by saying and showing that architecture is a tool to serve the needs of humans. Yet Alexander's own buildings, from what I can see, seem to suggest little of the sort. Instead, like Venturi, the architecture seems quite clearly to serve its own 'architecturally-eclectic' agenda.

That said, A Pattern Language is pretty excellent.

[SDR]

Thanks, Jay; that's a lot more of Christopher Wolfgang(!) Alexander's work than I had seen before. The single word I'd use to describe its collective quality: "quaint." "Cozy" would come in a close second, maybe ?

As for this facade, I'm afraid "awkward" or "naive" seems more appropriate:



Pattern 37x: "Cut and paste the same window wherever you feel like putting it. Omit the final framing device if there's no more room"

Richardson's Romanesque work includes examples of expert composition of similar elements . . .
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... -06-05.JPG

Even the most naive examples of original Romanesque or Carolingian work are better balanced than this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_architecture

S

[Matt2]

I started "A Pattern Language" not that long ago and found it too dense and inscrutable to slog through. I hope to give it another try eventually.

[DavidC]

Love the look of the 'eyebrow' windows here:





David

[Roderick Grant]

This is the most of Alexander's work I have seen. I am even less impressed than before.
I would hesitate to make comparisons of Alexander's work to that of Richardson! The interiors of Sala House show more than a hint of 19th century Swedish vernacular design.

[SDR]

"Comparison" can have several meanings. In this case perhaps "contrast" would have been the better term ?'

Yes, David; Richardson's library facade could have served Wright as an object lesson in asymmetrical composition. And his band of windows, stretching from the tower element nearly to the corner of the building, is surprisingly modern---and Wrightian ?

S

[DRN]

From my reading, the point of Alexander’s work was not about looks, beauty, or torturous academic architectural theory. It was about learning to see and recognize what in the built environment, not necessarily designed by architects, works well and “feels” like a place where one wants to be, and using those understandings to make other places which work well and enrich the experience of the users of the place.

This assuredly is an over simplified view, but it was what I gathered from his writings.

[SDR]

I believe that's the correct interpretation of his intent. Academic architecture---academia itself---was beside the point, for him. I was interested to learn, this time around, that Stewart Brand, of "Whole Earth Catalog" fame, was a friend and supporter; they thought alike in terms of encouraging end users to create the built environment (and its amenities) for themselves.

S

[jay]

A Pattern Language is clearly intended for a general audience and not solely academic. But I have trouble seeing Alexander outside the world of academia in any sense. Surely every professor who writes books has the 'intent' of a general audience, yet nearly always preaches to their [academic] choirs. Even for A Pattern Language, which I thoroughly enjoyed and believe is accessible to anyone, I still see it as a mostly academic offering.

[SDR]

Hmm. Sounds like the only books safely off your "academic" list would be "coffee-table" pictorials, and the more-or-less sensationalist semi-fictional fare we've seen several examples of in recent years ?

I guess Donald Hoffmann's books on Wright buildings, and the earlier works of Grant Manson, David Hanks, and John Sergeant, would fall somewhere between "popular non-fiction" and academic studies ? Alofsin, Sweeney, Kathryn Smith---academic ? What about the books written by owners; who is their intended audience ?

It is interesting to find the academics publishing partly to "correct the record" of errors they perceive in the work of their predecessors !

S

[jay]

Hmm. Sounds like the only books safely off your "academic" list would be "coffee-table" pictorials, and the more-or-less sensationalist semi-fictional fare we've seen several examples of in recent years ?

Not at all. Wright's "The Natural House" is a fine architectural book that avoids the academic trap. Michael Pollan's "A Place of My Own" is a brilliant book on architectural concepts, weaved cleverly into a narrative form. And Susan Susanka's "Not So Big House" contains many great architectural concepts in a non-academic presentation, all while encouraging 'end users to create the built environment for themselves'.

As for coffee-table books, I like coffee and tables and books and good pictures, so I won't mock the medium. Diane Maddex has published some really nice books on Wright's work via "coffee table" books.

The owners books vary, I guess. Certainly Herbert Jacob's "Building With Frank Lloyd Wright" is straight-forward storytelling, beautifully done, and wonderfully rich in architectural descriptions, both in idea and as-built.

All this said, I'm not suggesting academic books or academia itself is bad. The more technical a dive into something is, the harder it will be for those of the outside world to comprehend it. (And, as for the practice of architecture, when the focus is to serve ideas merely found in academic studies, the work can soon feel as if it's condescending or alienating to "common people", ie PoMo.) But it's the professors job to be technical. I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be. And I find plenty of published academic works to be really fantastic, Grant Hildebrand and Jay Appleton's stuff some of my personal favorites.