Christopher Alexander has himself noted that his ideas seem to have had more influence outside architecture than within it.
Here's what a couple of practicing architects had to say about CA when asked:
One from New York, USA, said this,
... Alexander went to Berkeley, I think in the early '70s, he
stepped into the whole California counter culture ethos and the
resulting work was almost a complete refutation of [Notes On The
Synthesis Of Form]. It is possible he spent too much time in the hot
what came out is referred to as "touchy feely" design methodology
and is often justified through phenomenological thought with a
sprinkle of Zen and Fung-shui.
and added this telling comparison,
You may also want to consider the work of Buckminster Fuller
as an [source of ideas] whose influence on built form is noticeable
by its absence
and one from Ontario, Canada, said
[a] Californian who has worked with CA mentioned that the best
thing that one could do with A Pattern Language is to blow it
up with a stick of dynamite.
And, a few years ago, a top-of-the-class student at one of the best schools of architecture in the UK, when asked, claimed maybe to have heard of CA. -- Keith Braithwaite
A British architect and Wiki writer comments:
There was a particularly extreme (determinist) view of design put forward in 'Notes On The Synthesis Of Form' and maybe Alexander's 'refutation' of this was reasonable. (I initially typed that as 'Notes on 'a' synthesis of form', a title that would imply many/several syntheses are possible....)
As for Buckminster Fuller having 'little influence on built form' that is pretty ridiculous: viz the work of Architects Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, Michael Hopkins (ie the whole 'Hi-tech priesthood!), even early Jim Stirling: all greatly inspired by the visionary American inventor/designer's ideas and, indeed, his personality.
That's a valuable observation Martin, I hadn't thought of the Hi Tech folks as being the new Bucky(s), but now that you've said it, it makes some sense. - KB
Maybe there are Big M methodologies in architecture, too? -- Hasko Heinecke
Are you suggesting that there are Big M methodologies in Architecture that are preventing CA's ideas coming to fruition? (Built) Architecture certainly is rife with "schools" and personality cults.
Having watched part of a UK architecture education at fairly close quarters I can't say I had any sense of anything we in software would recognize as a methodology being taught. Conversely, you could lose credit in assessments by producing a perfectly "adequate" design that just happened to conflict with the lecturers school of though. Of course, you could also get extra credit for really going out on a limb, but only once per term, it seemed. -- Keith Braithwaite
Which part of UK Architectural education did you see at 'close quarters'?
My first degree was at Heriot-Watt and I was for a while close friends with an architecture undergrad there (in the 2nd and 3rd years, if I remember correctly). -- KB
Could you explain what Big M means please? -- Martin Noutch
I had the opportunity to design my own house from scratch and ended up using 45 of CA's patterns. If you're interested, you can read more on my page - Richard Pawson - I'd love to hear from others who've done similar.
See original on c2.com 