
Philosophy of Architecture (2015) - DrinkWater
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/architecture/
======
asplake
Couldn’t help but search the text for references to Christopher Alexander (and
they’re there). Recommend The Timeless Way of Building - not just for the
patterns stuff that so inspired the tech community but for metaphors, many of
which translate into other domains. I channel one such - ‘wholehearted’ - in
my mission statement [1] and branding

[1]
[https://www.agendashift.com/about/wholehearted](https://www.agendashift.com/about/wholehearted)

~~~
bordercases
Christopher Alexander is one architect with one view. I used to think he was
the end all but he's not. There are or ought to be as many approaches to
architecture as there are architectural projects – because architecture is a
practice that first and foremost fits a solution to a context, _if there ought
to be a solution whatsoever_. Fundamentally architecture is about
_synthesizing integrative visions_ : everything else follows from this.

Patterns are not necessarily wrong, but presume a universality in
architectural problems from the outset that can narrow your perception of what
ought to be done too quickly.

Alexander's "avoid symmetry-breaking" as a design principle is germane across
almost all styles of architecture though. Whether or not an architect likes to
obey, ignore, or disrupt symmetries is the big tell as to what school of
thought they subscribe to.

~~~
asplake
Oh completely! But credit where credit is due...

------
markandrewj
If you are interested in this subject, I would recommend 'The Architecture of
Happiness' by Alain De Botton, and 'Status Anxiety' (even though the a later
is not focused on architecture, it is complimentary).

The books were also made into documentaries that are available on Alain De
Bottom's YouTube channel.

~~~
markandrewj
_auto-correct strikes again..._

------
lordleft
Architecture matters. When I walk into a brutalist space, I feel minuscule and
irrelevant. When I walk into spaces that I (subjectively) regard as a
beautiful, I feel changed, for the better.

~~~
homonculus1
>When I walk into a brutalist space, I feel minuscule and irrelevant.

That's a good feeling! Brutalist structures are like alien megaliths. You see
one and go "Holy shit, the world is full of big mysterious things!"

I contrast it with the mall or the fishbowl office building. Those are spaces
designed to soothe your every personal need, but the subtle purpose is really
to extract value from you. They are superficially pleasant but devoid of
meaning. Brutalism on the other hand is a call to adventure, and refuses to
coddle anybody.

But maybe you're thinking more of like a Japanese garden, something truly
beautiful and contemplative. That's the opposite of Brutalism in a good way,
and both have their place. I just hate it when people reject brutalism for
being "spiritless" yet welcome the most sanitized, commercialized
alternatives.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
When lordleft talked about spaces that were beautiful, I interpreted that as
meaning something like a cathedral, not a mall.

Something like an alien megalith is fine... to visit. I don't want to live in
one, though. I don't want to work in one.

------
tkyjonathan
I feel that philosophy of systems and theory of constraints would be a better
philosophy to use with computer systems.

