Dawes and Ostwald City Territ Archit (2017) 4:17 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-017-0073-1 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Christopher Alexander’s A Pattern Language: analysing, mapping and classifying the critical response Michael J. Dawes* and Michael J. Ostwald Abstract A Pattern Language by Christopher Alexander is renowned for providing simple, conveniently formatted, humanist solutions to complex design problems ranging in scale from urban planning through to interior design. This text is also believed to be the most widely read architectural treatise ever published. Despite this, there is also little acknowl- edgement in its popular reception that it is only one part of a trilogy of works documenting Alexander’s ‘second theory’ of architecture. Thus, while A Pattern Language is widely referenced in architectural scholarship, most of these references simply acknowledge its existence and fail to engage with its content. Furthermore, the literature that does critically engage with Alexander’s theory, challenging its ideas and assumptions, is often difcult to fnd, and the criti- cisms are diverse and complex. The intent of this paper is to facilitate a deeper understanding of these criticisms and the relationships between them. The 28 criticisms identifed in past research are organised hierarchically in this paper into three tiers representing those associated with the: (i) conceptualisation, (ii) development and documentation and, (iii) implementation and outcomes of Alexander’s theory. The relationships between these criticisms are then mapped diagrammatically thereby forming the basis for thematic groupings within each hierarchical tier. This organi- sation reveals that only two criticisms relate to the concept of pattern languages in isolation, while the remainder arise, directly or indirectly, from Alexander’s idiosyncratic ontological and epistemological positions. The conclusion analyses the relationships between the criticisms to develop a holistic and understanding of where the problems in Alexander’s theory might lie. Keywords: Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language, The Timeless Way of Building, The Oregon Experiment, Design method, Critical response Introduction on Alexander’s ‘second theory’ of architecture, which Massive social, technical and economic changes during appeared in the form of three canonical texts, Te Time- the nineteenth century provided the catalyst for the rise less Way of Building (Alexander 1979), A Pattern Lan- of modernism in architecture, and the creation of some of guage (Alexander et al. 1977), and the Oregon Experiment the world’s most iconic buildings. However, the relentless (Alexander et al. 1975). It must be noted that Alexander’s pursuit of the modernist aesthetic also produced exam- research actually constitutes a single, slowly evolving ples of uncomfortable and inhospitable spaces. Chris- theory of architecture that spans his entire career. How- topher Alexander was amongst the most vocal critics ever, these three texts represent a stable, middle stage in of these spaces and responded to them by devoting his Alexander’s research and collectively provide a sufciently career to developing three unique and closely related the- self-contained set of ideas to be described (for the ease of ories of architectural and urban design. Tis paper focuses the following discussion) as his ‘second theory’. Alexander’s second theory is signifcant for its attempt *Correspondence: [email protected] to facilitate a paradigm shift in architecture that would School of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Newcastle, replace the conventional, subjective and explanatory, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia © The Author(s) 2017. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. Dawes and Ostwald City Territ Archit (2017) 4:17 Page 2 of 14 theory with an objective, evidence-based, theory that and piecemeal adaptation to changing circumstances directly generates a design (Grabow 1983; Gelernter which brings all the ‘forces’ impacting a design into a har- 2000). A Pattern Language is signifcant for demysti- monious balance. In contrast, contemporary architecture fying complex socio-spatial considerations through a results from the imposition of formal rules and abstract simple building block format which makes this content concepts upon a single design episode, creating an out- accessible to non-professionals, and is one reason why come where the ‘forces’ are unbalanced. Alexander’s solu- this text is believed to be the most widely read architec- tion to this problem was a complex mathematical method tural treatise ever published (Lea 1994; Alexander 1996; for balancing all the ‘forces’ impacting a design. When Kohn 2002; Saunders 2002b; Hermann 2004; Mehafy applied in practice, Alexander discovered that this pro- 2008; Silva and Paraizo 2008). A Pattern Language is also cess was too demanding for all but the largest design pro- credited with inspiring the development of the object- jects. However, Alexander also discovered that particular oriented programming languages used to create the ensembles of ‘forces’ encapsulated generic situations that majority of current computer software in addition to par- occurred repeatedly throughout the built environment, tially inspiring the New Urbanist movement. and that resolving these forces would yield generic solu- Despite the infuence and impact of Alexander’s second tions that could be adapted to an infnite variety of spe- theory, it has been rejected or ignored by many archi- cifc circumstances (Broadbent 1980; Grabow 1983). In tects, and many academic references to the theory sim- order to pursue this line of thinking, Alexander secured ply acknowledge its existence rather than attempting to funding to establish the Centre for Environmental Struc- engage with its ideas. Nevertheless, the scholars who do ture and the concept of predefned generic solutions engage with the theory have identifed substantial faws, evolved to become the ‘patterns’ in his ‘second theory’ many of which are difcult to untangle without a sub- of architecture (Clavan 1979; Grabow 1983; Kohn 2002; stantial loss of meaning (Dovey 1990). Indeed, several of Veloso 2014). the criticisms cited are acknowledged, if not accepted, by Alexander’s second theory, itself a collaborative pro- Alexander, as part of various counterarguments he ofers. cess, was developed across three canonical books; Te Furthermore, despite the proselytising tone of A Pattern Oregon Experiment (Alexander et al. 1975), A Pattern Language, its introductory discussion states that it was Language (Alexander et al. 1977) and Te Timeless Way of published as a work in progress and encourages readers Building (Alexander 1979). Collectively these three works to continue to refne the patterns contained therein and constitute one of the 1960s and 1970s most sustained develop their own new patterns. criticisms of modernism. During this era Bernard Rudof- Tus, Alexander’s second theory of architecture is sky’s Architecture Without Architects (Rudofsky 1964), relatively poorly understood and this paper is dedicated and Amos Rapoport’s House, Form and Culture (Rapo- to bringing clarity to the myriad of criticisms levelled port 1969) and Te Meaning of the Built Environment against it. In undertaking this endeavour, 28 criticisms (Rapoport 1982) argued that intuitive and unconscious are identifed and organised into three hierarchical lev- processes were vital components of traditional and ver- els corresponding to the (i) conceptual foundations of nacular architecture (Kohn 2002; Bhatt 2010). In a simi- the theory, (ii) its development and documentation, and lar vein, Kevin Lynch’s Te Image of the City (Lynch 1960) (iii) its implementation and outcomes. Criticisms are also and Jane Jacobs’s Te Death and Life of Great American organised thematically and diagrammatically to reveal Cities (Jacobs 1961), focused on the importance of cog- how they relate to each other. Trough this process the nitive cohesion, vitality and piecemeal growth as part of paper diferentiates between criticisms of pattern lan- a vibrant built environment (Kohn 2002; Bhatt 2010). All guages in general, and those which are levelled specif- of these concepts were central to Alexander’s second the- cally at Alexander’s work. ory of architecture, which again focused on the inherent beauty of traditional urban spaces and buildings. Background Alexander believes “[t]here is a central quality which Christopher Alexander’s ‘frst theory’ of architectural is the root criterion of life and spirit in a man, a town, beauty was presented in his Harvard doctoral thesis and a building, or a wilderness. Tis quality is objective and later published as Notes on the Synthesis of Form (Alex- precise, but it cannot be named” (Alexander 1979, p 19). ander 1964). Te inspiration for this work is Alexander’s Te frst volume of Alexander’s theory—Te Timeless belief that the buildings of traditional societies are inher- Way of Building—details his belief that this unnamed ently more beautiful than contemporary architecture. quality is the source of the inherent beauty of traditional Alexander alleges that this disparity