
Christopher Alexander - cconstantin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander
======
ThePhysicist
I love his pattern language book and I know it inspired people from many
fields including but not limited to computer games and architecture.

To a certain degree though it tends to romanticize urban structures that were
born strictly out of necessity. For example the Italian old cities with their
intricate patterns of small roads, narrow stairwells and tiny houses hugging
each other seem quaint and magical to most tourists today, but they were often
not designed but born out of pure necessity and economic constraints, and for
centuries they housed mostly poor people that probably didn't realize they
were surrounded by beautiful "patterns".

If you approach his work with a slightly critical attitude there are many
interesting things to discover though.

~~~
tchaffee
Considering how important asthetics are to Italian culture - bela figura is an
idiom that is used often, and Milan is the fashion capitol of the world - the
poor people of Italy not only realize they are surrounded by beautiful
patterns but they can also point them out and explain why they are efficient
and / or useful. The discovery may have been organic, but in the land of Da
Vinci don't underestimate just how intentional many design decisions are. And
just how cultured and aware the average person is there, regardless of income.
The impression one gets after many years living in that culture, is that it is
in no way a new thing.

------
design-of-homes
I like much of what Christopher Alexander has written, but many of the
patterns he writes about in _A Pattern Language_ are rooted in a mixture of
opinion and sometimes evidence. There is an assumption that if an
architectural pattern has endured for hundreds of years then its longevity is
evidence enough of its universal application.

I'm particularly interested in what Alexander has to say about residential
housing, and this strongly-worded opinion from _A Pattern Language_ in
particular has always intrigued me:

 _“In any urban area, no matter how dense, keep the majority of buildings four
storeys high or less. It is possible that certain buildings should exceed this
limit, but they should never be buildings for human habitation.”_

Alexander goes on to argue that high rise living can be socially isolating:

 _“High rise living takes people away from the ground and away from the
casual, everyday society that occurs on the sidewalks and streets and on the
grounds and porches. It leaves them alone in their apartments. The decision to
go out for some public life becomes formal and awkward; and unless there is
some specific task which brings people out in the world, the tendency is to
stay home, alone.”_

The arguments sound quite convincing, but I’m not sure I agree entirely with
the four storey limit. I think there are also cultural and social factors that
contribute to whether high-rise living is a success or a failure. For example,
how well are housing blocks stitched into the fabric of the urban landscape
(instead of situated, isolated, outside of urban centres)?

And in some countries (e.g. Hong Kong and Singapore) high-rise living is a
necessity. Having said that, it is also a mistake to assume that high-rise
building is the only answer to high-density development e.g.
[https://imgur.com/LmJ1tTg](https://imgur.com/LmJ1tTg) (from a book called _At
Home in the City: an introduction to urban design_ )

~~~
aasasd
> _High rise living takes people away from the ground and away from the
> casual, everyday society that occurs on the sidewalks and streets and on the
> grounds and porches._

This is a widespread notion among modern ‘hipster urbanists’—e.g. in Russia
where Le Corbusier's dreams pretty much came true, in terms of external shape,
and buildings get higher and higher since the 60s.

You need to consider not only the floor-space, but also sunlight. To not have
ground floors in eternal darkness, high buildings need to have lots of empty
space between them. So as a result, you're sitting in an apartment with a view
on either a street road or a huge field inside a city block—perhaps with a
school or/and a kindergarten, sports court or two, maybe a playground, and
some people traversing this landscape. Any sense of closeness is kept inside,
there's little of it outdoors. And since the few thousand people in each block
need the same things, you basically have no reason to come down other than to
walk with your kids on that playground or go to the barber—it's not like
you'll see much difference across the road. It's truly residential housing,
‘districts for sleeping’ as they're called.

It can be argued that more places-to-be would be there, if there were paying
demand. However I'm yet to see any of that even in newly-built districts, in a
not-so-cheap city.

------
anm89
Pattern language is one of the the books that influenced me most in my life.
If you feel like you need a change of pace, pick it up. It unlike anything
else.

------
openfuture
I love Cristopher Alexander, the nature of order and his other books are like
they are sent from the future. However 'A Pattern Language' is a nice way to
say 'Algebra' and I don't think that he would disagree that he is just passing
on a translation of something he was taught himself.

The narrative 'Father of..' feels too pedestal-y for such a humble man.

