(also worth noting that the book was called *A* pattern language not *THE* pattern language; it was meant to be a prototype for other pattern languages people would either adapt or make from scratch; why it's called a "language" is it's a set of shared concepts for discussing)
Conversation
anyway it's a shame software people latched onto patterns and didn't really look much past them:
• the later CES books have a lot of practical things to say about procurement, contracting, project management
• the nature of order describes a "zero-cut" incremental process
4
1
15
• notes on the synthesis of form tried to answer the practical question of "how do i break a complex problem down into something manageable while destroying as little information as possible?"
• nature of order describes how to do that without resorting to phd-level math
1
16
…those who would paint alexander as a nostalgic traditionalist fail to take into account that what he's ultimately indicting is the building process invented in the 20th century that puts an immutable drawing as the authoritative legally-binding reference document…
1
7
23
…in other words the drawings dictate the benchmark for performance and nonperformance: if you don't build to the drawings, you don't get paid—rather you get sued—it doesn't matter what new information comes along; it doesn't matter how insane or stupid the drawings are
1
1
17
i guess my question to software people is: does this sound at all familiar?
3
19
Replying to
I think a lot of it is simply that he attracts a certain kind of following and invites a certain pattern of interpretation. That’s generally a robust signal of an implicit bias in the work.
2
Ie kinda like if mainly reactionaries cite him, maybe there’s a reactionary tendency there? If almost all examples of “good” by a theory are old, and examples of “bad” are new, that theory has a non-trivial trad bias.
3
Possibly the rhetorical issue is he conflated a temporal era (modern) with a principle (authoritative design doc) and a good general principle should be sort of ahistorical.
2
2
Replying to
that's one of those "if you actually read the books" issues: there is a distinct reason *why* old is (often) good and new is (often) bad according to him, and it has mainly to do with procurement and contracting practices and the inability to admit new information
3
8
Replying to
If so, had it been my theory, I’d probably have looked for counterexamples to prevent correlation=causation. Like “here’s an old Roman building that’s bad in the same way, and a new skyscraper that’s good in the old way.”
But maybe pattern-based thinkers don’t naturally do that.
(but again that's a 4-volume, 2500-page book that will cost you $350 and take you a year to read)
new buildings that are "good in the old way"—at least ones he didn't build—are harder to come by because of the dictates of the economic process that gets them built
1
4
Show replies
I don't think there's any doubt that Alexander is a "conservative" in the Burkean sense, is there? I mean patterns are basically a way of organizing "learnings from experience". And the rest of his stuff is focused on organic / "self-organizing" + objective value.
1
1
i dunno enough about burke to comment; what trait in particular are you referring to?
1
Show replies


