I have great respect for Alexander's ideas, but when he's mentioned, I can't resist sharing this cheeky presentation from one of his Berkeley hills neighbors about the "patterns" evident from the exterior of Alexander's house:
(I don't believe the presentation was prepared with the intent to belittle Alexander's work, and I don't share it in a negative spirit -- but rather as a sort of "only human"/"cobbler's children" observation about the contrasts between a professional oeuvre and personal life.)
That's exactly how I'd expect Christopher Alexander's house to look. The buildings he praises in his work include few cathedrals, and many folk houses in traditional villages around the world. He wrote that the clean, sterile lines of Modernism were designed to enhance the egos of architects, not the lives of their clients. The houses he built in Mexico (The Production of Houses) were made cheaply, using community labor, from handmade local materials.
He also believes that a building is never finished, and should be continually modified by its inhabitants. (Stewart Brand's How Buildings Learn is another book that should be read by both programmers and architects.)
Wow...that's... really... his house? What a mess. I can't see how a renowned architect would want to live in such a ramshackle way. Seems like if you're an architect you need to have your house be a showcase of your work - an example that clients could look to get an idea of some of your better work.
http://metatime.blogspot.com/2005/04/patterns-good-and-bad.h...
(I don't believe the presentation was prepared with the intent to belittle Alexander's work, and I don't share it in a negative spirit -- but rather as a sort of "only human"/"cobbler's children" observation about the contrasts between a professional oeuvre and personal life.)