Christopher Alexander's "Pattern Language" - AB+C 71

[@OKKOwood]

Great video!

[@cleberfigueiredo6734]

This helped me understand his books better, and make sense of why I was not seeing as much as other people seem to see in them. Thanks a lot!

[@aoustenaloysious8324]

Brilliant work, thanks a lot

[@Lance0714]

These are a set of ideals. Theoretical, if you apply some or more of these ideas. The result will be “quality without name.”

[@Lance0714]

Thank you

[@garymoffatt8292]

William Morris! loud wallpaper for all. What a wonderful argument could we build. Trying to reinvent dao, badly. There is an analogous list of types of construction in BIM that is precursor to the inheritance in 5 and 6d models and/or formal specification. a miracle if it works, silly if it doesn't.

[@garymoffatt8292]

Goldfish were bred with eyes looking up because people viewed them from above....not a flowerpot by the door but a tub of googly eyed goldfish looking back at you. You can get this book online, you can also get Vetruvius at Gutenberg, which you should.

[@felipearquitecto2377]

This is a very shallow critique. I could only hear half of it. Anybody with two fingers of forehead understand the book is a guideline to the things and ideas that have proved to worked in architecture during the past centuries. And Judging for the current state of architecture nowdays (not talking about the architectural record awarded houses or the RIBA houses, but the common houses on every street of every city specially northamerica), he is absolutelly right on his observations. We have lost a lot on how to make architecture a meaningful experience since second world war and the arrival of modernism, and Christopher´s book its an excellent starting point on how to incorporate ideas to make architecture more human, more conected to us. The author never claims to incorporate all ideas (or patterns) into a single design but rather to chose on those that are more relevant to your own work. In general this book its an excellent work on analysis and obervation, it does what no other book, or teacher or practicing rockstar architer does, it explains clearly (and backs it up) what makes architecture deep and meaningful and what makes it shallow and lifeless.

[@about_buildings]

It's reasonable to ask - what are the criteria for inclusion? Answer - whatever Chris Alexander feels like. It's a mixture of sensitive observations and galaxy-brained mad ones. There's no filter and certainly nothing objective. As a story it's rather attractive, but as a design guide, a good test would be, has it actually led to any good buildings? Have you ever used it? How? Are any of Chris Alexander's buildings any good? (answer: no)

[@mxmilkiib]

Actual anarchists do organise, and such groups would most likely be rather interested a humane approach to the built environment. Also, "dark patterns" do exist. Part of the criticism is like complaining that the things category theory (in maths) deals with are too abstract, or that this wasn't AFAIU the first modern treatment/collation of design patterns in architecture, or that the patterns aren't prescribed, or aren't diversely combined. For politics, I think Murray Bookchin et al would be the best pairing.

[@mohammadj.yeganeh5964]

Christopher Alexander's sentimental studies against the mediocracy of designs by architects are plausible in a spiritual sense. I feel that he wanted to emphasise that there is an extension between nature and architecture, that the orders and principles of nature should be conveyed through architecture; his studies are obfuscated because they deal with order and spirituality were the subject of spirituality is difficult to unfold in an empirical sense.

[@lulimey]

Absolutely suscribed! Would you ask yutube to have subtitles in spanish?

[@alhesiad]

Christopher Alexander is terrible at explaining his own ideas.

[@candymandan]

Rather enjoying this epecially your discussion of the specific projects. The Berkley house reminds me of the old living room in my standard 1960s norwegian home I grew up in, with more pine than you could possibly imagine. Absolutely horrid, so I suppose his idea of the "perfect vernacular" is quite on point, cause the aesthetics definetly look like the result of pre-oil scandinavian pragmatism. I wonder, as you have the opportunity on youtube to add images of the architecture you're talking about, have you concidered doing that? I understand it's a time/money investment though and it's not too hard to google along, but it might attract more "viewers" Edit: Well, I guess the end of the episode kinda answered it. Keep on keeping on guys :)

[@about_buildings]

thanks! i think there's a pinned story on our instagram that has some of these images on it. @about_buildings on there. but yes, point taken, we're still very audio-first at the moment...