Christopher Alexander is a leading architect of our time who teaches at the University of California at Berkeley. He has made many contributions to architecture and to what one might call the philosophy of architecture. He has, surprisingly, even had a significant impact on the way in which software is developed. In his book "The Timeless Way of Building", Alexander believes he has uncovered the process by which men at one time created buildings that were deeply satisfying to them. Though the superficial form of this book is prosaic, it has the feel of poetry throughout. Even the table of contents has a poetic feel. Somehow Alexander maintains this feel for the 549 pages of the body of the work. (Amazing!) As well as being a renowned architect, Alexander is clearly an exceptional writer.
The following quote (of the last paragraph of the book) will give you a feel for his perspective and for his writing:
Almost everybody feels at peace with nature: listening to the ocean waves against the shore, by a still lake, in a field of grass, on a wind blown heath. One day, when we have learned the timeless way again, we shall feel the same about our towns, and we shall feel at much at peace with them, as we do today walking by the ocean, or stretched out in the long grass of a meadow.
Alexander does an excellent job of comunicating what it is he thinks we should strive for. Very roughly, he would have us strive for a certain kind of peace and harmony with nature. However, there is a serious flaw in his work. Alexander encourages people to long for an imagined past way of building and living and perhaps even to work to somehow recreate it.
The central concept in his view of architecture is the quality without a name. Poetically this concept is very powerful. And I believe Alexander is correct that he is touching on something that some part of each of us relates to and desires. But intellectually the name is deceptive. He himself has named the quality without a name. He has chosen to call it "the quality without a name". And I now give it two more names: "x27" and "raspberry jam". So now the quality called "the quality without a name" has three names.
Alexander claims that x27 is objective and precise. I am not sure what he means by this, but I think that he means that the concept can be communicated to others and that the concept is precise enough that one can say whether or not something has that quality. Alexander has done an admirable job of communicating what he means by this somewhat elusive concept. But he has not convinced me that x27 is precise. But for the sake of argument, let's say that he is correct and that x27 is precise. So what? Do I have to strive for every value that someone makes clear? For example, if someone makes clear what lying is, should I feel bound to become a liar? Part of me is drawn to x27, but senior to that are my desires for surviving and winning.
I neither know nor care whether it is true that men once had a stronger sense of x27. It seems likely to me, but, again, so what? This is now. That was then. x27 is inconsistent with modernism. It is an archaic artistic/spiritual relic that will surely be cast aside. I do not choose to strive for it.
© Copyright 2002 George Woolley