Conversation

Replying to and
(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
Replying to
Again if it had been my theory… I’d have gone out of my way to find other good things to say about modern stuff. But that’s because I’m sensitive to having views attributed to me that I don’t hold, so I tend to invest in active counterprogramming of misreadings I can anticipate.
2
1
Replying to
Perhaps. If so, it’s probably a proportionately big task to reclaim his legacy from the misreading you appear to be countering. Like an essay applying his theories to the design of space stations or something.
2
2
Replying to and
Incidentally my first intro to him was quite future-oriented via the Stewart Brand crowd. Straightforward design exercises. Then I found mostly trads getting into it, and I was like “huh, okay, not my scene.” The patterns on the software side never appealed to me.
1
1
So… what are actual modern examples of his thinking driving the “synthesis of form”? If architects reject him and the software version failed, who’s actually using his ideas for design as opposed to design criticism? Or is it reduced now to a purely analytical/critical frame?
6
2
Replying to
entirely plausible nobody has fully circumscribed his work yet, which is why I have read (nearly) everything he wrote. alexander became a general contractor so he could implement his process end to end, including a contract he did up from scratch which is in this book:
Image
1
1