Ann, Terry , et. al.

Alexander's patterns are based on syllogistic logic (IF this
situation exists THEN do this). His Pattern Language is less a theory
based on empirical evidence than a systematic format for declaring a
reasoned response to a situation. However, it does set forth both
supporting evidence and the reasoning behind a proposed response. (One
wants to focus on whether the limited set of discrete" types of
information" in his pattern are sufficient and appropriately
developed.) His patterns are a language only in the sense that
particular situated responses can be documented, communicated, and
explored in relationship to new situations and each other- a pretty
good approach that could be much better if widely used and compiled in
a searchable knowledge system that also noted the links between
different "patterns", their components. and applications. Alexander's
often overlooked book "The Oregon Experiment" offers an instructive
example of how existing patterns were applied/adapted for a specific
project. It gives the chosen patterns a context to guide their
interpretation and elaboration in a design. Given the many
possibilities in design, I doubt that a typology based on "situated"
evidence can encompass as much as either a logical or functional
structure that is amenable to computation and grounded enough to be
used and empirically tested in diverse design applications.

Best
Chuck

Dr. Charles Burnette
234 South Third Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106


On Dec 8, 2008, at 5:13 AM, A.B.Thorpe wrote:

> Hi Terry and list,
> yes this is an interesting question and one that I am struggling
> with a bit in my current research on design activism. I now have to
> make the shameful admission that I have not read (any of)
> Alexander's work on pattern language (although it's on my list --
> certainly moving up). As a side note regarding Damian's original DNA
> question, I wonder if the work of Stewart Brand, "How Buildings
> Learn" would also be of interest, taking the evolutionary idea a bit
> further--across time, or if the biomimcry guild (Janine Benyus et.
> al.) has looked into it at all.
>
> My own struggle seems somewhat simple in comparison to the
> discussion regarding DNA, but it centers on the issue of creating a
> viable typology. This question does not so much concern knowing that
> a pattern element does what is claimed, but more "proving" that
> there are indeed certain "types" of patterns. In this regard I've
> looked at a range of work on typology. As one author writing about
> urban typologies (Marshall) notes, “In general there is a balance to
> be struck between having too few broad categories or too many narrow
> ones.” The types must actually mean something to the field in which
> they are situated.
>
> Along these lines one might have practical/actual types (eg building
> types) and theoretical types, as you imply Alexander et al.'s might
> be. Actual typologies are generally inductive, built through an
> iterative process of examining empirical cases, whereas a deductive
> approach relies on a theory that defines all the theoretically
> possible variables and types in advance. In most cases typologies do
> rest, at least initially, on empirical cases and in this sense
> typologies are as much art as science.
>
> In addition to theory driven typologies, I also learned that there
> are typological theories, for example in explaining historical
> events. While a historical theory describes a specific set of
> circumstances that help explain why an event happened, a typological
> theory explains the various pathways that an event might take based
> on set of available types. George and Bennett explain, “Instead of
> focusing on the ‘Russian revolution’ per se, a typological theory
> would explain this revolution as one example of the type of
> revolutions that, for example, follow an international war; replace
> weak state institutions; and take place amidst an economic crisis.
> Even if there is only one revolution fitting this type, by
> identifying the conjunctive effects of its underlying causal
> mechanisms, we can generalize in a limited way to possible future
> revolutions that fit the same type. Such generalized pathways are
> what is distinctive about typological theory.”
>
> It strikes me that pattern languages are in a sense both theory
> driven typologies of patterns, but also typological theories, in the
> sense that they suggest pathways that a building (or a conservation
> economy) might (or perhaps should) take based on a set of available
> or acceptable types.
>
> Typologies of course can't ever be proven absolutely, as Schneekloth
> observes regarding the problem of the "odd" type. Typologies are
> both "prison and promise because they will always be open and closed
> at the same time." But then, the odd type can be a sign of
> innovation or evolution.
>
> In the end typologies can perhaps be judged as to their
> meaningfulness or usefulness given their purposes...does the
> typology help us order and compare things in systematic study?
>
> Here are a few references for what it's worth:
> Bailey, Kenneth D. (1994). Typologies and Taxonomies: An
> introduction to Classification Techniques. Sage University Paper
> series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-102.
> London, Sage Publications Ltd.
> Franck, K. A. and L. H. Schneekloth, Eds. (1994). Ordering Space:
> Types in Architecture and Design. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
> George, A. L. and A. Bennett (2005). Case Studies and Theory
> Development in the Social
> Sciences. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
> Lawrence, R. J. (1994). Type as Analytical Tool: Reinterpretation
> and Application. Ordering Space: Types in Architecture and Design.
> K. A. Franck and L. H. Schneekloth. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
> Marshall, S. (2005). Urban Pattern Specification. London, Institute
> of Community Studies.
> Robinson, J. W. (1994). The Question of Type. Ordering Space: Types
> in Architecture and Design. K. A. Franck and L. H. Schneekloth. New
> York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
>
>
> Best,
> Ann
>
> Ann Thorpe
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Dept of Design, Development, Environment & Materials
> Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom
>
> Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London
> Wates House, 22 Gordon Street London WC1H 0QB, United Kingdom
>
> [log in to unmask]
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> book: The Designer's Atlas of Sustainability (www.designers-atlas.net)
> & blog: http://designactivism.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an
> exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in
> Scotland (SC 038302).