Introduction to Pattern Language

Using the work of Christopher Alexander and Nikos Salingaros, I present a paper that want discuss the philosophical
structure that are behind The Pattern Language (PL). Through a simple way Ill show you the intimate connection
existing among the PL and other cultural aspect like painting as well as the fractal geometry. I have referred my
philosophical approach especially to the work of Oswald Spengler and his work Der Untergang des Abendlandes
Philosophical aspect

Before introducing the essential elements to be exposed by Salingaros I would like to

devote our attention, even though in a concise way, to the philosophical structure which
has generated Alexanders research on Pattern Language [1].
The structure that can be individuated within the Pattern Language is the result of a
culture that has seen its flourishing during the first years of the 20th century.
Spenglers philosophical studies, which in their aspects of reaction to the illuministic
cultural structure have tried an historical-ideological reconstruction of the historical
processes, attributing to these a cyclic structure in which the cosmic symbolism, so filled
with poetry, juxtaposes to our modern cultural structure, so strongly centred on technical
and scientific progress and on the principle of cause and effect that it has ended by
losing into the mazes of our centuries-old cultural matrix; the research in the logicmathematical field of Gdel, Boole and Morgan, or of logic applied to the machines as in
the case of the mathematician Turing, the discovery and definition of the fractal
structure, and lastly the works of the Dutch painter Escher; all these have supplied the
cultural background from which Alexander has certainly started to give birth to his
theory about Patterns. Certainly it has been and still is a current of thought which
belongs to an lite, to those few that, according to the main culture, think nostalgically to
past realizations. This is a culture, as abovesaid, born from a reaction to the illuministic
spirit; yet I believe it is mainly an attempt to renew certainly not in a trivial, or worse in
a merely imitative way, the primeval link from whose essence springs the element of
creation.

Here are then the attempts to reinforce the concept of Pattern as an architectonic
archetype, as an essence which is able to communicate, through the language of
patterned forms, i.e. of those symbolic structures which have imbued all the cultures,
throughout the world, patterns which have had not only architectural, but also musical,
theatrical and singing expressions and which have given form to the same mythology.
Salingaros has become a lover and a scholar of that theory, producing a great deal of
essays to demonstrate Alexanders thesis. According to Salingaros, the intimate
connection that has always existed between mathematics and architecture has been
almost thoroughly broken during the 20th century. The greatest expressions of
architecture had never broken off this link before.
In order to demonstrate this deep connection, Salingaros reports in his works the
various historical times characterized by it. As a matter of fact, since ancient times the
architects were mathematicians and their constructions from Egyptian pyramids to the
ziqqurat up to the projects of hydraulic engineering even now fill us with wonder and
enchantment.
The same can be said about the works realized at the time of ancient Greece or Rome;
just think, for instance, that emperor Justinian commissioned two mathematicians to
build the Hagia Sophia, so that they would realize a sublime structure. This tradition has
maintained even in the Islamic world, where the architects have created a richness of
bi-dimensional elements which have preceded by centuries the classification worked out
by Western mathematicians.
This constructive process, linked to an intimate need of mankind to generate patterns
is not only valid for the great architectures, as the Pantheon of St. Peters Basilica
where it is clearly visible the mathematical element in the structure and its
hierarchisation into sub-elements characterized by symmetries that go perfectly well
with the microscopic structure of the material but also for architectures that come out

of popular traditions, where the basic idea of re-employment of information and a

strongly geometric vision end by producing structures which are mathematical
expressions and, therefore, evident expression of patterns.
All this tradition has, however, undergone deep wrenchings during the 20th century;
according to Salingaros, this is due to two reasons:
i) the achievements of the Modern Movement;
ii) a socio-cultural structure that has a world vision centred on anti-pattern.
The author indicates the Modern Movement as the suppressor of pattern in architecture.
The works of modern masters show a vision of architecture based on anti-pattern.
Contrasting with the traditional works which are intrinsecally mathematical, the works of
a Le Corbusier or of Loos result devoid of patterns, although many of these works
recover elements of geometry from the classics.
But then, what does Salingaros ask to this architecture in order to define it as
intrinsecally mathematical and therefore adhering to the principles of the Pattern
Language?
Well, according to Salingaros, architecture and town-planning from the Modern
Movement onwards have no fractal properties; on the contrary, nearly all of the
architectural and urbanistic realisation of the moderns have done nothing but remove
the fractal structure from our environment.
Besides, the fact that many moderns have employed elements of classical geometry
does not necessarily involve the compatibility of these realizations with fractals.

Even le Corbusier, though he had created the MODULOR a system of modelling able
to create a link between architecture and mathematics has never applied it to the
design of surfaces, since he preferred to realize empty and raw surfaces in concrete.
This happens also in the faade of the convent of Ste Marie de la Tourette produced
together with the composer Xenakis where he has produced at random a merely
ornamental faade and not a pattern.
The same principle is valid for town-planning. According to Salingaros, the Modern
Movement, though it has regularized the roads and disposed the buildings in accurate

modular rows has been merely able to generate an oversimplified geometry in the
town form, producing an environment in which the mathematical complexity which
was on the contrary so present in the historical areas has been strongly reduced,
leading in this way to a removal of spatial and dynamic pattens, which brought to the
creation of empty and deprived-of-life suburbs.
The methodology of the Pattern Language, instead, proposes itself as a method able to
guarantee a global order, a planning process able to produce a balanced development
between the needs of the various social groups and the whole, adapting, thanks to a
light bureaucratic structure, to the unpredictable environmental and social changes.
This is a methodology that greatly strays from present planning procedures for two
reasons:
1. first of all, because it is not a design method, i.e. patterns are not graphic
representations, but elements which define a philosophical structure, deeply linked
with the socio-cultural processes that have always distinguished, in a clear and
coherent way, the history of a place and the relations of these elements with man; it is
on the basis of similar considerations that indications may originate in order to let a
place become the extension of man and of his activities; every act of urban creation
should then be consistent with some principles such as:
ORGANIC UNITY, i.e. the constructive processes which can be considered as parts of
a whole;
PARTICIPATION, i.e. citizens should be the protagonists of the planning process of
their environment; that is, a process of self-construction will be accomplished, the only
process being able to generate a superior urban quality that, though the result of an
unplanned operation, succeeds in defining a formal and cultural coherence through the
language of patterns.
GROWTH BY PARTS, i.e. the ability to grow through small plans carried out in short
times, which will nevertheless allow a unitary growth through patterns;
PATTERNS, i.e. the leading principles for the actual building of plans;
DIAGNOSES, i.e. the creation of a light structure being able to preserve the well-being
of the whole through a yearly diagnosis, aimed at the individuation within the urban
structure, of the spaces which remain dynamic from those that lose their dynamism;
COORDINATION, i.e. the ability to guarantee the organic unity of the interventions
through a regular financial flux;
2. the interventions, mainly when operating at the level of town planning, are no longer
characterized by a vertical methodology, i.e. by a methodology which excludes, or at
least takes into little account, the real contingencies of citizens.
That methodology, in Alexanders opinion, does not end by being a limitation of planning
freedom, on the contrary, it offers a myriad of possibilities among the directions offered
by patterns. This architecture becomes then the only one able to offer a syntax which
allows qualitatively superior urban developments, because it succeeds in conjugating all
the different elements into a unique complex and coherent creative act.
As suggested before, the Pattern Language differs from the classical methodology of
planning which is static and distant from the citizens needs. It aims at being a
methodology exalting an urban quality attained through an urbanising process highly

connected to local culture; where town-dwellers are the authors of that process, that
even though self-constructing is, in fact, the result of a careful choice, coherent with its
socio-cultural processes.
Therefore the Pattern Language becomes a sort of historical philosophical planning
trend where various elements, through which one tries to give a soul to space, are
interlaced. Patterns are structured so that they can be containers and content at the
same time. Starting from a general pattern it is possible to go deeper and deeper inside
it, thus operating also on the single constructive details.
The formal link between Pattern Language and fractals comes out of this consideration,
and Salingaros individuates this link most of all in the geometry of the suburban parts of
the town.
According to Salingaros, a fractal urban geometry is the one which best defines,
through the methodology of patterns, an urban web able to encourage and promote
those socio-economical processes that also generate an ecologically satisfactory
environment. All that said, it is interesting to see, even though very briefly, the way we
proceed operatively.
As we have previously seen, patterns individuate problems often present in planning
practice, analysing both the spatial and social context. From this point we can find out
the solutions to come to an agreement within the community, giving thus origin to a selfconstructing process of our plan.
The logical structure of each pattern is so organised:
a drawing which defines an archetype;
a brief text, that defines the context and the ways of introducing patterns on a larger
scale;
the essential elements of the problem;
a more closely examined description;
the solutions, through a series of directions and possibly a sketch;
links with other patterns.
Alexander in his work has individuated even 253 patterns, which articulate from town
planning to the planning of constructive details. If we consider, for instance, the patterns
in growing order, starting then from the urban context, we will proceed on a hierarchical
structure as follows:
1. Independent Regions.
2. The Distribution of Towns.
3. City country Fingers.
4. Agricultural Valleys.
..
Then we start going deeper and deeper into detail, defining every time the guidelines,
as for example in the control of the features that have to be impressed into the town
development:
21. Four-Story Limit.
22. Nine percent Parking.
23. Parallel Roads.
24. Sacred Sites.

25. Access to Water.

26. Life Cycle.
27. Men and Women.

The process undergoes then a more detailed examination, such as in the definition of
gardens, roofs and terraces, of the volume of buildings and the spaces between them,
of open and enclosed spaces:
110. Main Entrance.
111. Half-Hidden Garden.
112. Entrance Transition.
113. Car Connection.
114. Hierarchy of Open Space.
115. Courtyards which Live.
116. Cascade of Roads.
117. Sheltering Roof.
118. Roof Garden.
.
As a conclusion, it is possible to assert that Pattern Language is the attempt to permit
the survival in the human language be it in architectural or in other forms of those
complex forms characterising both our biochemical development and the development
of the unconscious needs of man.
Alexander tries to perpetrate an urban development based on free choices, yet at the
same time expression of an ancestral language and deeply rooted into the historical,
cultural and evolution processes.
A development which proceeds according to general guidelines supplied by patterns;
which allows man to feel he is the author of his own environment, re-appropriating of
that cultural entity that architecture and town-planning of the 20th century have deprived
him of.
It will certainly be a hard task, on the account that never before the processes of
alphabetisation have produced on the one hand a middle culture that has much raised
than in past centuries, and on the other hand they have determined a disaffection
towards that cultural structure the matrix of our culture which has produced so many
masterpieces. It is probably this cultural relaxation, this feeling orphans of our sociocultural matrixes that makes us feel the environment we have built more hostile than
welcoming.
Arch. Antonio Caperna, PhD | International Society of Biourbanism

NOTE
[1] Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I. and
Angel, S. (1977) A Pattern Language (Oxford University Press, New York).
[2] Spengler Oswald, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, C.H. Becksche
Verlagsbuchhandlung (Oscar Beck) Mnchen 1923
[3] Escher M.C. Many Eschers works are a sort of paradoxt. The mathematicians were
first admirer because in this work its possible to look at a fractal expression and the
representation of the flight between finite and infinite.

As you may have seen, ArchDaily has been publishing UNIFIED ARCHITECTURAL THEORY, by the urbanist and
controversial theorist Nikos A. Salingaros, in serial form. However, in order to explain certain concepts in greater
detail, we have decided to pause this serialization and publish three excerpts from another of Salingaros books: A
THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE. The following excerpt, the first, explains the terms Pattern Language (as well
asantipatterns) and Form Language.

Design in architecture and urbanism is guided by two distinct complementary languages: apattern language, and
a form language.

The pattern language contains rules for how human beings interact with built forms a pattern language codifies
practical solutions developed over millennia, which are appropriate to local customs, society, and climate.

A form language, on the other hand, consists of geometrical rules for putting matter together. It is visual and
tectonic, traditionally arising from available materials and their human uses rather than from images. Different form
languages correspond to different architectural traditions, or styles. The problem is that not all form languages are
adaptive to human sensibilities. Those that are not adaptive can never connect to a pattern language.Every adaptive
design method combines a pattern language with a viable form language, otherwise it inevitably creates alien
environments.

Architectural design is a highly complex undertaking. Heretofore, the processes at its base have not been made
clear. There have been many attempts to clarify the design process, yet we still dont have a design method that can
be used by students and novices to achieve practical, meaningful, nourishing, human results.

In the absence of a design method and accompanying criteria for judging a design, things have become very
subjective, and therefore what is built today appears to be influenced largely by fashion, forced tastes, and an
individuals desire to garner attention through novel and sometimes shocking expressions.

This Chapter puts forward a theory of architecture and urbanism based on two distinct languages: the pattern
language, and the form language.

The pattern language codifies the interaction of human beings with their environment, and determines how and
where we naturally prefer to walk, sit, sleep, enter and move through a building, enjoy a room or open space, and feel
at ease or not in our garden. The pattern language is a set of inherited tried-and-true solutions that optimize how the
built environment promotes human life and sense of wellbeing. It combines geometry and social behavior patterns
into a set of useful relationships, summarizing how built form can accommodate human activities.

The importance of a pattern language for architecture was originally proposed by Christopher Alexander and his
associates. A fairly general pattern language was discovered and presented by Alexander, who emphasized that,
while many if not most of the patterns in his pattern language are indeed universal, there actually exist an infinite
number of individual patterns that can be included in a pattern language. Each pattern language reflects different
modes of life, customs, and behavior, and is appropriate to specific climates, geographies, cultures, and traditions. It
is up to the designer/architect to extract specific non-universal patterns as needed, by examining the ways of life and
tradition in a particular setting, and then to apply them to that situation.

Living architecture is highly dependent on patterns, which shape buildings and spaces accordingly. A pattern is a set
of relationships, which can be realized using different materials and geometries. Architects, however, confuse
patterns with their representation, i.e., what an arrangement looks like. Patterns are not material, though we
experience them with our senses. It is far more difficult to understand them intellectually, and almost impossible to
grasp patterns from within a world-view that focuses exclusively on materials.

A pattern language for work environments can be put together by examining the components of successful
emotionally-comfortable work environments from different cultures and periods around the world. A software
developer today has many requirements in common with a distant ancestor looking for a comfortable place to sit and
carve a bone or paint a piece of pottery. Being able to work in an emotionally-supportive environment boosts morale
and productivity, and cuts down on workplace errors.

For several decades, however, architects and interior designers have insisted on applying formal design rules to
office environments. Such rules tend to give a standard compromise that satisfies almost none of the fundamental
requirements for a good working environment. Their occupants usually characterize them as ranging from sterile to
oppressive. Here is a fundamental disconnect between what architects imagine office space should look like, and the
characteristics of the kind of space that users actually require to be productive in.

In the theory of pattern languages actually developed more extensively in computer architecture than in buildings
architecture the concept of antipattern plays a central role. An antipattern shows how to do the opposite of the
required solution. An ineffective solution is often repeated because the same forces that gave rise to it in the first
place recur in other similar situations. Assuming that the futility and counterproductive nature of such a solution is
evident (which is not always the case), its occurrence can be studied to see what went wrong.

Antipatterns do not comprise a pattern language, just as a collection of mistakes do not comprise a coherent body of
knowledge. It is therefore not appropriate to talk of a language of antipatterns, but simply a collection of antipatterns.

Nevertheless, antipatterns could (and often do) substitute for, and displace a genuine pattern language, with very
negative consequences.

Documenting an antipattern can save future designs from the same mistakes by identifying a problematic solution
before it is adopted. However, knowing the antipattern does not automatically indicate the pattern, since the solution
space is not one-dimensional. Doing the opposite of the antipattern will not give the pattern, precisely because there
can be many different opposites going out in many different directions in the solution space.

Pattern languages have evolved, and, as with all evolved systems, they have developed an extraordinary degree of
organized complexity. It is not possible to understand all this complexity, let alone replace it by a design method
based on deliberately simplified rules. And yet, that has been the basic assumption of twentieth-century architects:
that we can simply replace all the evolved architectural solutions of the past with a few rules that someone has made
up (and which dont even have the benefit of experimental verification).

The form language, on the other hand, is strictly geometrical. It is defined by the elements of form as constituted by
the floors, the walls, the ceiling, the partitions, and all the architectural components or articulations, which together
represent a particular form and style of building. A form language is a repertoire of forms and surface elements that
can be combined to build any building, and so it represents more than just a superficial style.

The form language depends on an inherited vocabulary of all the components used in the assembly of a building;
rules for how they can be combined; and how different levels of scale can arise from the smaller components. It is a
particular and practical conception of tectonic and surface geometry. One extremely successful form language, the
Classical Language, relies on a wide range of variations of the Classical style of building based on Greco-Roman
ancestry.

After centuries of Classical buildings, even with varied and successful adaptations to local climates, conditions, and
uses, the Classical form language remains intact. Every traditional architecture has its own form language. It has
evolved from many different influences of lifestyle, traditions, and practical concerns acting together to define the
geometry that structures take as the most natural visual expressions of a particular culture. A form language is a set
of evolved geometries on many different scales (i.e., ornamental, building, urban) that people of a particular culture
identify with, and are comfortable with. It is highly dependent on traditional and local materials at least that was the
case before the global introduction of nonspecific industrial materials.

My present aim is to be able to discern whether a pattern language is genuine, so that it can be connected to a form
language and thus define an adaptive design method. It is imperative not to be fooled by a collection of antipatterns,

otherwise our resulting design process will be non-adaptive, even though this may not be known at the beginning of
the process. We will eventually see it in the non-adaptivity of the results, at which time it will be too late to do anything
about it (i.e., after an unnatural city such as EUR, Milton Keynes, or la Dfense has been built).

Nikos A. Salingaros, A Theory of Architecture (see this books Wikipedia entry) is now available in an international
edition HERE with shipping to anywhere in the world. Readers in the US can choose between the new printing with
Index HERE and the original printing, which is selling at half price HERE. Translation into Chinese HERE, and
Persian .

ARCHITECTURE AS A DYNAMIC SYSTEM

By Alex Brown
Abstract
The paper proposes a theory and model of systematic evolutionary change in architecture based on a
definition of architecture as a dynamic and self-regulating complex system. Stylistic change and
development are explained as a cumulative result of the selective forces which arise in the normal
processes of communication and exchange between architectures many practitioners. The paper offers
a radical interpretation of architectural history centred around the emergence, development and
transformation of the key unit of architectural reproduction: the Style. That is, the typical set of
elements or paradigm which acts as the template for the production of many individual works of
architecture. Style is explained as an emergent phenomenon arising out of collective selectioncombination of diverse experiences.

Key Words
Architecture; style; articulation; decoration; systems; architectural systems; Meta-style; communication
and exchange; cumulative selection combination of forms; paradigms; representation; modelling;
evolution; development; involution; plurality; organisation; emergence; semantics; syntax; context;
ambiguity; the marginal; probability.
1.

Initial Definitions

Architecture:
A recognizable similarity of form between a large number of buildings irrespective of their function.
How else would we recognize the existence of architecture other than by noting such regularities of
form? Architecture is information which characterizes the forms of buildings which are material objects.

Style:
The particular set of characteristic forms which produces a similarity between buildings based on the
use of a typical set of forms which architects select and combine into new buildings.

Meta-style:
The dominant style of a particular historical period derived from a synthesis of the characteristics of a
previous set of styles. Sometimes referred to as a classical architecture.

Typological Process:
The normal processes of communication and exchange between architects which results in the
collective production of typical sets of stylistic forms. The process involves mutual selection and
combination of forms by architects within a defined geographical or discursive environment.

Environment:
The cumulative effect of all the other cultural systems which architecture represents in built form within
a given society.
2. Architectural systems as Networks of Communication and Exchange
Communication and exchange between architects takes place through a process of mutual selection and
combination of the forms available in many individual works. This continuous sharing of experience
involves the selection of real and observable elements drawn from other peoples work and combined in
new contexts. These elements are the means of communication within the system. This network of
exchanges taking place within a defined environment leads to an increasing similarity of form within the
architectural system based on the most typical or essential aspects of the exchanged elements. This
similarity is the basis of the stylistic paradigms which emerge as representative models of collective

experience and which act as constraints on future selections.

3. The Emergence of a Meta-style in Architecture

The emergence of a dominant style within architecture may be defined as: a single stylistic set projected
out of a number of previous styles through continuous communication and exchange between
architects. That is, it is the emergence of a new level of organisation in the system the meta-style. We
may suggest the following:

a)
While each of the original styles represents the cumulative experience of many individual acts of
selection and combination of form by architects in particular localities, the meta-style represents the
cumulative experience and essential characteristics of the several such styles. In effect it becomes the
classical style for a whole society.

b)
While the number of individual works by produced by architects within a society may stay the
same or increase, they become increasingly similar to one another in the sense that their components
are now selected from a single and very specific stylistic set of forms.

c)
The original differences between the styles which merge into a meta-style are usually based on
the geographical dispersion of groups of architects who work within the system. There is in effect a
communicational barrier between these groups which leads to a variety of different ways of doing the
same thing'. That is, different forms for solving the same problems.

However, increased communication (connectivity) between these diverse groups by means of new
technologies, trade, cultural exchange, voluntary integration or imperial acquisition establish the basis
for the integration of architecture around a single style. The various elements of the original paradigms
are selected and exchanged in terms of their fundamental similarities and differences. The almost
similar becomes the similar in an essentially economic selective process where the most
representative and TYPICAL routines which underlie circumstantial differences become the single
behavioural set which one can call the Meta-style.

Note that it is the contextual or circumstantial aspects of the original forms that are eliminated or
repressed during the processes of exchange in favour of a single comprehensive model which can be

applied across a wide range of contexts within the same architectural system. If we want to 'see' a style
or meta-style, we must look at the uniformity of characteristics which increasingly link many different
individual works.

4.

The Evolution of Architecture

In order to examine the concept of evolution in this sense we may note that the state of architecture
varies considerably throughout history. For example:

a)
Stylistically the character of architecture is sometimes extremely diverse with many different
styles while at others it is almost completely unified around a particular style.

b)
The emergence of global similarities of form - the great classical styles which can dominate
architecture for long periods of time.

c)

The disintegration of classical architectures into several equally-valid styles.

d)
The sometimes considerable variation in the lifespan of styles with some lasting only a decade
while others last a millenium.

e)
The later forms of a style are more articulate, rhetorical and exaggerated than those of the
earlier phases. (The circle becomes the ellipse in Baroque terms and in Modern architecture a new
formalism of texture and shape replaces classical restraint. Even so-called Functionalism requires the
exaggerated emphasis of particular forms at the expense of others for spurious ideological reasons. The
syntactic results are the same).

f)
Details are emphasised at the expense of wholes as the character of particular elements are
ever more precisely defined to the point where the whole becomes an assemblage of parts. (In
communicational terms the flexibility and complexity of the original elements is split or punctuated into
several discrete and precise elements).

g)
There is a tendency towards decomposition of the whole building into distinct volumes or
assemblies as each part of the building becomes a self-referencing identity. In Modern architecture this
can be seen in the so-called functionalist phase.

h)
There is in some periods a greater use of decoration and proportional systems as a means of
maintaining the unity and the meaning of the forms used in a building.

i)
In the later stages of a style there is a tendency towards irony, parody, play, illusion and selfreference in post-classical architecture. At one level these may be seen as language games made
possible when the system is freed from any dependence on context. It is the architectural language itself
which becomes the subject of experiment and further coordination rather than its relation to the reality
outside the system itself.

5.

The System of Patronage

The only factor which can explain these historical variables is the effect of some constraint on the
`behaviour' of architecture as a whole which would reinforce or reduce its normal tendency towards
producing uniformity of characteristics. Such global limitations can only arise outside the architectural
system itself, in the state of its environment. The specific mechanism by which these external relations
are mapped on to architecture is the system of patronage in existence at the time which reflects the
number and relative power of the institutions within a society. This can be precisely defined as the
institutions or individuals who have the economic power to commission buildings. The motivating force
and the very existence of architecture depends entirely on the production of buildings. These are the
social and economic relationships of the time realized in built form and represent the varying degrees of
economic power of different institutions. A power which is realized in the large concentrations of capital
required to build buildings.

6. Integration and Plurality of Patronage

The variation in the number and importance of styles throughout history is an effect of changing
relationships within the economic system transmitted through to architecture by a corresponding
change in the number and commissioning power of the patrons. Like any other dynamic system, the
socioeconomic state of a society changes from time to time. For example:

a)
The total wealth of a society may be centred on a small number of large institutions. This can be
referred to as an Integrated state. In this the various institutions which make up a society are in some
sense coordinated with one another and appear to act as one single system.

b)
The total wealth of a society may be dispersed amongst a large number of small institutions. This
can be referred to as a Plural state. In this the various institutions within a society are autonomous and
have random or variable relations with one another.

c) The socioeconomic system moves unpredictably between these two poles of organization with
consequent change in the number and relative power of the patrons who will commission buildings.

7. Effects of the system of Patronage

Architectural activity, acting within one or another of these socioeconomic states - of integration or
plurality - will produce different degrees of uniformity of style in the repertoire. That is, the same
process acting within different environments will produce different end results. The mechanism for this
is as follows: In an INTEGRATED system of patronage, a few powerful institutions will each commission a
large number of buildings similar in character and requirements. In a PLURAL system of patronage a
large number of less powerful institutions will each commission a few buildings similar in character and
requirements. One system of patronage will tend to concentrate a large number of similar buildings
within a few styles, thereby increasing the relative significance of these styles in the repertoire. (In
purely numerical terms, other styles will be marginalized). The other will disperse a large number of
buildings throughout many styles.

From the above one can summarize the effects of the system of patronage on architecture as follows:

a)
Integrated systems of patronage reinforce the tendency of architectural activity to produce
uniformity of style.

b)
Plural systems of patronage retard the tendency of the architectural activity to produce
uniformity of style

c)
Architectural activity collective selection and combination of forms - is invariant no matter
what the current state of the system of patronage.

8.

Permutations

In order to produce an evolutionary model of architectural history and architecture as system one can
permutate the relations between architecture and its variable environments. The two initial
components for this model would be as follows:

a)
The constant factor - the collective algorithm of selection and recombination of architectural
form taking place through normal communication and exchange of experience between a large number
of architects.

b)
The variable factor - two possible socioeconomic states, whether Integrated or Plural and their
equivalent systems of patronage.

From the interaction of these two factors over time one can suggest three possible historical states for
architecture. These states will affect the degree of diversity or uniformity of style within architecture at
any given time and ultimately through the semiotic freedom made available to architects, the kind of
formal characteristics which will be exhibited within each period. Along these lines one can suggest the
results of various possible interactions in the following way:

9. Normal Architectural Processes in a Plural System of Patronage will Produce an Pragmatic State in
architecture. That is Continuous Undifferentiated Change. (Ref. 19th Century)

The character of architecture in a Pragmatic state may be suggested as follows:

a)
The continuous production of different behaviours, styles and sets of forms. Given the
institutional diversity of the Plural environment the number and relationships between institutions
keeps changing. The only thing that can be achieved in the exchange between architects is the creation
of temporarily stable groups of forms produced by local circumstances. The lifespan of these styles will
be limited.

b)
Several equally valid styles co-existing during the same period. This is consistent with the
diversity of the socioeconomic system at that time. Architects in this situation have a choice of styles
which they can use to represent different social institutions. There are in a sense more stylistic answers
than there are questions and always several different ways of doing the same thing - of representing the
same experience.

c)
Since the same institution can legitimately be represented by different and equally valid styles,
the prevailing trait of the Pragmatic state is ambiguity. There is a continual crisis of meaning since it is
impossible to establish and maintain a coherent and generally accepted set of typical forms for similar
situations. The key semiotic aspect of the Pragmatic state is that it cannot represent the similarities
between different experiences.

10. Normal Architectural Processes in an Integrated System of Patronage will Produce a Developmental
State in Architecture. That is, the Formation of a Single Stylistic Paradigm or Meta-style out of the Last
set of Diverse Styles. (Ref. Early Modern)

The same collective processes acting in an INTEGRATED environment will produce an increasing
convergence in the characteristics of different styles within architecture This may be called the
Developmental or Paradigmatic state where the interchange and combination of elements underlying
different styles results in the formation of a simple, global routine or predominant style. In systemic
terms there is a shift from the evolution of new forms of behaviour to the development and elaboration
of a single behavioural program. The characteristics of architecture in the Developmental state can be
outlined a s follows:

a)
Concentration of patronage derived from more integrated relations between different parts of
the socioeconomic system allows increased connectivity between architects. The normal collective
processes of communication and exchange between architects NOW results in the synthesis of the
elements and geometries which underlie different styles into a single limited set of forms.

b)
The first stage of this synthesis may be recognized as a period of eclecticism where the forms
drawn from different styles are combined while still retaining their own stylistic identities. Further
exchanges in the context of a stable environment reduces these identities to their most fundamental or
typical characteristics and these are essentially geometric, spatial or organizational in nature. For

instance, Modern architecture as a synthesis of the orthogonal grid of Classicism and the so-called free
plan of Neo-Gothic or vernacular. The Developmental state produces a set of forms which can be seen
as a single economic answer to a number of different representational problems.

c)
The ambiguities of architecture in the Pragmatic state are resolved since there is now a single
but flexible instrument of expression which can be adapted to suit different contexts and yet maintain
its stylistic identity. It is able to represent both the similarities and the differences between different
institutions with various combinations of its generic typical set. There is no further need to invent new
solutions for different problems. Buildings are now seen to be variations on a single theme, combined as
they are from a recognizable set of forms. This meta-style is eventually recognized as a classical
architecture and comes to be closely associated with a particular historical and social era.

11. Normal Architectural Activity in a Continuous Integrated System of Patronage will Produce an
Involutionary State in Architecture. That is, Over Time it will Result in the Fragmentation of the
Developmental Synthesis and its Classical Architecture. (Ref. Late 20th century, Postmodernism)

The continuity of the Integrated state leads to ultra-stable environmental conditions where the same
systemic processes produce entirely different and apparently contradictory end results, namely the
fragmentation of the Meta-style itself. During an Involutionary period the quite natural tendency of
architecture to produce uniformity (driven by communication and exchange between its agents) is
reinforced by the further integration of its socio-economic environment. In cybernetic terms this is the
equivalent of positive feedback which reinforces the tendency towards uniformity. While in the
Developmental period this process simply meant that the almost similar became the similar, in the
Involutionary period of a system the similar becomes the identical. In the Involutionary state systemic
processes trapped within a highly-integrated and seemingly 'immortal' socio-economic environment
subject the Meta-style itself and its uniformity to selective re-combination. The architectural
characteristics of the Involutionary state can be outlined as follows:

a)
There is an increasing disarticulation of architectural form. The classical set is fragmented into a
number of variations on its own theme. While the selection-combination mechanism inevitably
articulates architectural form around its most probable elements, in the Involutionary phase this results
in the disarticulation of the classical set. There is a tendency to integrate what is already integrated, to
clarify what is already clarified and to further articulate the most probable elements of the classical
(Developmental) paradigm. The result is to stereotype the elements of the classical set by identifying
and fixing their most probable and precise characteristics. In effect the set is bureaucratized and made
inflexible.

b)
Only the most probable characteristics of forms can be legitimately selected. Buildings become
increasingly similar to one another to the point where they can be termed identical. Architecture is
unable to represent the differences between different contexts. It can only speak of what is similar. This
results in an inevitable crisis of meaning. In this post-classical state there is a drastic reduction in the
semiotic freedom of the architectural language. The function of architecture requires it to represent the
full complexity of relations in the environment - it no longer has adequate means of doing so. It has
been rendered rigid and inarticulate. It now has very limited semiotic freedom to express what it must
express.

c) During this period architectural canons, compositional rules, standards and practices are precisely
formulated by finally eliminating contextual or circumstantial characteristics. All are fixed and
categorized and in social and institutional terms given the authority of law.

d)
Decoration becomes the predominant visual feature of the Involutionary architecture. It is used
as a remedial device to resolve current semantic problems by introducing an apparent diversity of form
to the primary (but inflexible) elements of the typical set. Given the rigidity of Involutionary forms they
cannot represent differences of context. Therefore decoration in the Involutionary phase must be fluid
and diverse to give a fictitious diversity of character to possibly identical buildings. Decoration acts as
fictitious context.

e)
So too during this period, proportional systems are introduced as a remedial device to ensure
the visual coherence of increasingly disarticulated forms. The stereotyping of architectural form means
that the character of the elements used in a building must be precisely defined. They will not be adapted
to suit their particular location in a building or their relationship to the buildings context. The building in
this case becomes an assemblage of self-referencing parts.

While architects will continue to select forms from the available repertoire for their individual works,
they will find that the degree of semiotic freedom they have to do so changes over time. The too-flexible
repertoire of the Pragmatic period eliminates the regularities of form which define what is probable or
what is general. The rigidity of form during an Involutionary period cannot represent anything in
particular. Apart from the Developmental period described above, in the other two phases architects
are forced to add determinative clues to their buildings to indicate the precise meaning of the forms
used. Thus decoration - a secondary formal language derived from the past is now used to maintain the
necessary quota of meaning required by architectural form. In practical terms, decoration in the

Pragmatic period provides a fictitious unity of form while in the Involutionary period it provides a
fictitious diversity of form.

12.

The Collapse of the Meta-style

In the extreme conditions of the Involutionary state it can no longer refer to particular times and
particular places. For this reason in its final stages, the Meta-style begins to display pathological
symptoms. In communicational terms, this pathological state is equivalent to schizophrenia where
diverse behavioural fragments are assembled to meet complex social situations. The inevitable
differences of form which must occur in the system over time in order to cope with complex realities are
now dealt with by the production of a secondary language of decorative `fictitious' differences.
Subject to intense selective pressure the Meta-style disintegrates into variations on variations of itself
giving rise to an allegorical or scholastic phase where a superficial plurality of behaviours is emphasised
by decoration In concrete terms, overwhelmed by the decorative elements required to maintain its
semantic credibility, the single dominant style seems to fragment into a series of different but related
sub-styles as in Postmodern architecture.

Architecture as System

By Alex Brown
A THEORY OF THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE

1.

INTRODUCTION

Theory of Architecture is not History of Architecture by another name. History deals with buildings and
the various styles of architecture which have arisen throughout time. History in this sense is a
DESCRIPTION of the architectural facts.

Theory attempts to provide an EXPLANATION for those facts. It looks at the reasons why buildings look
the way they do and why architects have chosen to design their buildings in particular ways. It also looks
at the reasons why architectural styles have changed over time and the assumptions and attitudes of
architects which influenced their thinking during particular periods and led to those changes. Equally it
looks at the sources for the ideas that architects use in the design of their buildings. Where do

architectural ideas come from? How do they get into circulation? Examples of movements, influences,
ideas and theories in architecture which changed the course of architecture over time the way it
looked and the styles that were used. That is which made buildings different to what they were before.
How theory influenced the practice of architecture by introducing new perceptions of the same events new way of looking at reality and therefore new ways of representing that reality in built form.

2.

BUILDINGS STYLE AND ARCHITECTURE

a)
Buildings are material facts. They are physical things. No matter how complicated they are,
their basic function is to provide shelter for human beings against a hostile climate. As physical
enclosures they also provide a psychological sense of security to their inhabitants.

b)
Because buildings contain different activities and are built in different locations, they are
necessarily different to one another. They respond to their particular context (time, place, technology &
programme). Individual buildings represent very particular individual circumstances.

c)
Yet there are similarities between buildings -sometimes considerable similarities even
between buildings of different size and function. A survey of the many buildings built during a period of
history will show that they can be classified into groups of similar buildings. That is, buildings which
share similar characteristics. They use the same basic set of forms to solve their very different
programmatic, climatic or locational problems. In other words they use the same language to express
their different situations.

d)
Architects in the same geographic area exchange information and experiences. They look at
each others work and select forms which they combine in their own individual projects. The forms used
in these projects are then selected by other architects. This continuous selection of forms between the
architects within the same architectural area produces an increasing similarity of form. Buildings begin
to look similar to one another because certain architectural forms are selected more often than others.
These forms become typical of an architectural group. They become its identity and define its character.

e)
This typical set of forms used by a number of different buildings is called a STYLE. Styles are
groups of similar buildings. Sometimes there are several styles existing together. Sometimes there is a
single dominant style which most architects use.
A style is a similarity between a large number of different buildings no matter what their purpose or
function. The style emerges over time and through the practice of many architects. It acts a model of

behaviour for architects and provides an economic solution to the problem of designing buildings. The
architects does not have to invent every building from nothing. The style (as model), offers a readymade set of elements which have been developed and tried by many architects over time and which are
understood or familiar to the public. These few elements can be selected and combined for new
projects.

f)
Architecture can be defined as the stylistic similarity between different buildings. Architecture in
this sense is not a physical state but rather INFORMATION. That is, information which characterizes
(gives a particular identity) to buildings which are physical objects material facts. Communication
between architects produces information styles or patterns of behaviour which influence or shape
buildings.

3.

ARCHITECTURE AS REPRESENTATION

To understand what Theory of Architecture is, we must first look at what architects DO in the design
buildings.

The basic function of architecture is to REPRESENT social institutions in built form.

To do this they TRANSLATE the complex relationships of an institution into the language of architecture.
(That is the programme of the institution). These are relationships between the various activities which
take place within the institution. Architects give each of these activities a particular physical space and
these spaces are arranged according to the functional relationships between groups of activities within
the institution. In this way a building represents the ORGANIZATION of the institution in physical form.

a)
Individual buildings represent individual programmes, circumstances and institutions. They
REPRESENT the relations between different parts of the institution. They represent those relations IN
BUILT FORM. That is, in the language of architecture.

b)
The style as a collective phenomenon REPRESENTS the relations between all of the
architectural work in a given area and the many institutions which they represent. These institutions
outside architecture act as the ENVIRONMENT of architecture. Architecture represents that
environment with built form. Not, however with any kind of forms, but with the typical set of forms
produced by the interaction between many architects over time. That is, with the current style.

c)
Theory of Architecture looks at the kind of choices architects can make in selecting forms for their
buildings. When architects select forms from the work of other architects to be combined in their own
work, they are making a choice. Eg. What is the most suitable combination of forms for this particular
circumstance or project? What is the most suitable combination of forms which can EXPRESS
(represent) the character of this particular institution? Does this building (this representation) match
the organization, the complexity, the symbolic character or expected social meaning of the institution
which is being represented.

At the level of the whole of architecture, Theory of architecture asks the same sort of questions:
does the current style match the state of the environment which it is meant to represent? Does it offer
enough choice to the architect to accurately express the character and complexity of social institutions?
The environment changes over time. Styles change too, but at a different rate. It is possible that the
style no longer adequately represents the environment. It may be that a new style is necessary a new
approach to architecture.

4.

WHAT IS THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE?

This relation between the architectural form of buildings during a particular period the historical facts and the institutions (the environment) which they represent is the area of Theory of architecture.
Theory of architecture can be understood in several ways:

a)
Theory acts as a critical function between what architects actually do and what they think
they are doing or what they should be doing. It identifies the difference between performance and
achievement. If the task of architecture is the correct or accurate representation of its environment
(social institutions), then theory assesses how well that task has been achieved.

b)
Theory identifies problems which occur when architecture fails to represent its environment
successfully. These are semantic problems. That is, problems of MEANING where the identity of the
institution (its character, purpose or organization) cannot be understood or PREDICTED by looking at its
architectural form.
Theory of architecture analyses the causes of such problems and in some cases offers solutions. When
we say that Theory is used to analyse something, we mean something quite specific. That is, HOW
SUCCESSFULLY architecture represents that particular institution.

c)
The analysis of the success or failure of a single building or the work of a small group of
architects in the task of architectural representation is called: architectural criticism. Theory applies the
same kind of critical thinking to the global level of architecture - to the whole of architectural
production. It looks at the stylistic choices currently available to architecture and asks whether they are
capable of adequately representing the current environment. This is theorys critical role.

d)
Do the current styles match the complexity of the environment? Do they allow architects the
necessary vocabulary to respond to human psychological, physical, social and symbolic needs. If they do
not, why not and what are the options open to architects to solve these problems. Architects do not
design styles. They emerge over long periods of historical time through the work of many architects.
Thus individual architects cannot invent styles on their own which work better. In order to be
understood, they MUST use the currently available styles. These are the only language available to them
even if they dont work too well. Architects cannot choose NOT to use the styles. They are trapped in
history - they have to use them. If they dont use the available styles (architectural languages), no one
will understand their buildings.

Theory of architecture analyses this condition and identifies the nature of architectural problems,
suggesting alternative approaches. That is, ways in which architects can break out of this historical trap
ways they can successfully represent social institutions with architectural form.

e)
Theory of Architecture offers critical analysis of the relation between architecture and other
institutions. It does so by:

i.
Offering architectural criticism of the design of single works or groups of works in terms of
their success or failure.

ii.
Looking at what architects WANT TO ACHIEVE against what they ACTUALLY ACHIEVE in the
act of representation

iii.
Offering possible solutions to the semantic or stylistic problems within architecture as a whole
(new stylistic approaches, images, sources of inspiration or new directions). Sometimes it imagines a
future architecture where current problems have been solved. (The Utopian solution).

iv.
Providing explanation, context and historical background to critical issues in architecture and
to current problems. It says why things are the way they are.

v.
Examining the process and techniques by which designs are created and the influence which
these have architectural form. For instance, in order to translate the form of the institution into an
equivalent architectural form, the design process may exclude complex relationships within the
institution. While this may provide a simple diagrammatic explanation, it fails to accurately represent
the complex reality of things. Here, Theory would indicate that the design process itself is inadequate
for its stated purpose of representation.

5.

ISSUES IN THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE

Theory identifies critical problems in architecture. Some examples of these kinds of problems are given
below:

a)

When buildings or styles are too similar to each other

For instance, if the buildings of a particular period are too similar to one another or its forms are too
stereotyped and rigidly fixed, the difference between different buildings cannot be expressed or
represented. If all buildings looked the same, there would be a serious semantic (meaning) problem.
One would not be able to tell the meaning, purpose or function of any of them. One would in a sense be
lost, unable to differentiate one place from another.

b)

When buildings or styles are too different from each other

For instance, as in the 19th century, where there are too many equally-valid competing styles in
architecture to give a single coherent image of the environment. In this case there are too many
differences between buildings. If everywhere is different from everywhere else there are no
similarities then one would again be psychologically lost.

c)

The Introduction of new Building Types

The sudden increase in the number of new building types which emerged during the Industrial
Revolution in the early 19th century: railway stations, large factories, mass housing, office buildings,
departmental stores, could not be adequately handled by existing architectural forms. A whole set of
new forms had to be invented to cope with these problems a whole new architecture called the
Modern Movement was born.

19th century theory concentrated on this particular issue. What would a new and Modern Architecture
look like? How would its forms be shaped to cope with these new large-scale and complex building
types?

d)

Rigid Styles which generate Hostile or Aggressive Environments

Or, in the 20th century, where the rigid and geometric forms of Modern Architecture were regarded as
hostile, abstract and meaningless having nothing to do with human sensitivities. In both these cases, it
was generally understood that there was something fundamentally wrong with the architecture of the
period. The result was a crisis of meaning in the 1970s, a rejection of Modern Architecture and the rise
of the Post-Modern Movement.

e)

The loss of Regional Character or Identity in Architecture

Theory can point to the loss of particular regional architectural types when an economically dominant
society imposes its culture on another society. For instance Modern Western architecture has replaced
regional architectures in the Middle East, Africa and Asia because of the dominance of Western
(European/American) economic power. This loss means that a single dominant architecture is imposed
everywhere. There are no other ways of representing things. The special identity of places and cultures
is wiped out in favour of a single global culture. There is a loss of cultural complexity and variety. That is
different ways of expressing things. This is like the loss of regional languages which allow peoples to
identify who they are and express their cultural differences from other societies. Theory can discuss
this problem and suggest possible solutions.

6.

DIFFERENT THEORETICAL APPROACHES

The general function of Theory of Architecture is to define the relationship between architecture (which
itself is a social institution) and the other institutions in a society. In all cases, however its primary
concern is the state of the architectural language its capacity to represent those institutions - how that
language expresses or represses the symbolic and organizational character of other institutions. It also
deals with the influence of these other areas on architecture itself. Theory of Architecture in this way is
a truly interdisciplinary subject.
For example, theory can analyse the relation between:

a)

Architecture and Sociology

Studies how architecture expresses the changing relationships within society and the emergence of new
social groups. Eg. Urbanization. The rise of an industrial working class or middle class in the 19th century
eg. mass public housing The rise of the post war consumer society. The suburban dream or minority
ghettos. Different architectural or urban building types in different societies. Theory in this case deals
usually with URBAN issues and how the City changes to meet new social and population developments.
Also looks at how architecture reflects the complexity and plurality of society in the late 20th century
its division into numerous special interest groups. Can a single architectural style really express this
plurality of interests? Post Modern architecture as a response to increasing diversity of lifestyle and
social groupings by introducing multiple styles. Other examples of this kind of theory include the study
of how architecture represents gender issues, minority groups, the disabled, etc. etc. and ultimately
how it reinforces the roles and stereotypes which prevail in a society.

b)

Architecture and Technology

Studies the influence and use of new technologies on the shape of architecture. In historical terms the
use of iron and concrete in the development of the Modern Movement in architecture. Examines the
possibilities for new architectural expression based on developing technologies. Eg. Archigram in the
1960s theorized the possibility of fluid or mobile cities. New communication or computer technologies
virtual realities - suggest the possibility of distibuted spaces rather than specific locations for buildings.

c)

Architecture and Politics, Wealth, Power or Class

Analyses how the social division of society is reflected in the architecture of a period the type of
buildings and the type of symbolic images and forms used to reflect power within a society. Eg. The
architecture of monarchies, dictatorships or democracies will be different. In what way do the
relationships of power within a society affect the architecture? Eg. The shape of Baroque architecture
and the use of the dominant axis, or the presence of Modern Corporate power in the design of office
buildings. Or, analyses the theocratic architecture of India or South East Asia in terms of the strict
organization of society and architecture laid down by rulers. Looks at revolutionary architecture as a
break with tradition and authority. Eg. Boulle and Ledoux during the French revolutionary period.
Studies the relation of Modern architecture to democratic

d)

Architecture and Art

Studies the sometimes very close relationship and influences between the art of a period and its
architecture. Eg. The invention of perspective and new drawing techniques by Renaissance artists and
the work of Neoclassical and Romantic painters decidely influenced the design of buildings during those
periods. Note also the direct relationship between Cubist painting and the development of the early
Modern Movement. So too, Modern graphic art and the movies suggest new, imaginative forms which

architects can use in the design of their buildings. Modern art, which deals with environmental design
(Installation Art) produces ideas which become influential with current architectural thought.

e)

Architecture and Philosophy

Philosophical ideas about meaning, order, ethics, the ideal, rationalism, the methods of critical thought,
deconstructivism, logic, consistency, the idea of beauty, harmony, aesthetics, theories of mind,
representation and perception, and so on all have their parallels in the Theory of Architecture. Usually
these relate to how to organize buildings according to some non-functional but controlling idea such as
symmetry, hierarchy or multiple axes and how to integrate the different parts of a building into a
coherent and understandable or meaningful whole. Theory can also take a moral or ideological position
where it demands that architecture express the shape or form of a better society a more just or moral
society. (Eg. Arts and Crafts movement). Also, the philosophical concept of functionalism or
instrumentalism has been translated into architectural terms by the expression of the internal dynamics
(spaces) of the building. Some of these ideas where incorporated into the forms and organization of the
Modern Movement in architecture. A more recent and complex philosophical analysis of architecture is
that of Deconstructivism. In this, Theory is used to compare the complexity of the programme or the
institution with the inevitably simplified version represented in the building. In Deconstructivist terms,
the order of the building pretends to represent the institution but in fact merely substitutes a set of
preconceived and simplistic forms. While the building seems to have an order, it is not in fact the order
of the institution which it is supposed to represent. In Deconstructivist terms, the building must express
the complexities and contradictions, accidental arrangements and organizational collisions which are the
real nature of all institutions. What architecture usually does is to reflect only a pure or ideal version of
the institution not the messy reality. The issue of how architectural form is actually perceived by
humans can also be found in philosophical ideas and this can be taken into account in the manipulation
of built form.

f)

Architecture and History

This looks at the uses of history in the pursuit of architectural form. Eg. The idea of historicism where
there is a deliberate use of traditional forms in modern buildings to provide continuity with the past and
increased meaning in the form of new buildings. This is either by the direct use of forms from past
architectures or as eclecticism where forms from different past and present styles are mixed together.
And, the counter-argument which rejects the use of past forms as superficial and decadent. Theory
looks at the function of history in architectural design and how previous forms are re-combined to
produce the new. Theory also looks at the idea that each architecture is a pure product of the social and
economic processes of its own time quite separate from previous architectures. This radical idea
formed the basis of the early Modern Movement which completely rejected traditional forms. Today,
however, with Post-Modern architecture traditional forms can be freely combined within a modern

building in order to give it an instant memory a set of ready made associations and a richness of
image.

g)

Architecture and Science

The various branches of science, from physics to biology to cognitive studies to systems theory and
artificial intelligence (AI), cybernetics and computer engineering offer examples and analogies to
processes operating within architecture. These are of essentially two kinds: those such as AI and
computer engineering which deal with the design process. For instance, identifying or mapping
networks of relationships and hierarchies within the institution to be represented as a building. The
theory is that these scientific techniques allow the architect to be more accurate in the design of the
organization. Sciences such as physics, biology or general systems theory provide examples of
architectures as systems or organisms in terms of system-environments, behaviour, cybernetic
feedback, field theory (space-time perception) and others. These suggest examples of how social
institutions like architecture might operate. These are necessarily abstract examples and attempt to get
a different or outside perspective of how the discipline functions without getting involved in the
languages, history or practices of architecture.

i)

Architecture and Human perception

Theory and practice both suggest that HOW human beings perceive buildings will affect how buildings
are designed. People get their experience of things through their five senses: sight, touch, taste, smell &
hearing. There are also psychological factors in how people perceive space and form issues of
familiarity, distance, colour and the shape or spatial; definition of space (narrow, enclosing, open vistas,
concentric or linear, axiality, etc.). Each of these factors sense and psychology can be used to analyse
the success or even just the character of built space. Theory looks at buildings in terms of how it they
are supposed to be seen or experienced and how it is ACTUALLY experienced. Theory compares what we
know about human perception and the experience of shape, colour and texture (decoration) of
particular buildings. Theory can also discuss architecture in terms of perceptual territory, psychological
security, defensible space, the relation between social groups and their identification with particular
urban areas. That is how people perceive their social space and how new buildings reinforce or destroy
that identification. (Eg. Living in tower blocks surrounded by open space rather than low level housing
and high densities. A factor in this kind of analysis is to match crime, social delinquency, psychological or
social alienation and community breakdown to the shape of architectural and urban space).

j)

Architecture and the Future

One of Theorys tasks is to suggest alternative architectures. There are three possible ways of doing this.
The first is to produce architectures of the future which are designed to suit new or developing

technological or social conditions. Some of these ideas can then be incorporated into present day
architecture to solve current problems or provoke a change in direction and a recognition of developing
trends that are not being expressed in architecture. The second is that these completely imaginary
architectures are used to shock or disrupt the normal processes of architectural thinking. These attempt
to break architecture out of a cultural trap where it produces inexpressive or cliched buildings or shapes
the form of architecture purely in terms of functional or instrumental goals. In such a case, an imaginary
(or Utopian) architecture might propose an architecture stripped of all references to history and to the
conventional forms of architecture. To produce a truly radical architecture by inventing or discovering
forms which had no precedent in history. The third is to produce pure works of the imagination
graphics which are in a sense artworks. They are there to provoke wonder or pleasure in the viewer an
experience in itself. In this case the architectural forms are merely the content or subject matter of a
work of art. These however can be provocative and influential, in some cases producing changes in
architecture itself.

k)

Architecture and the City

Theory of architecture deals in many cases with urban design theories. It is in the complexity of the City
that architecture finds its truest expression. That is, in the collision of many different buildings both
from the past and the present and from the many functions which the City includes. There is a direct
parallel between the theory of architecture and that of urban design. In both cases the issue is to
represent in built form and in spatial enclosure the organization of a social institution. The City is the
most complex social institution in history. It has to be given physical form inspired by or determined by
the nature or character of the many sometimes conflicting institutions which co-exist within it. Theory of
architecture as such analyses architectural interventions in the City how they either reinforce or
change its identity. The architectural basic elements of this urban analysis can be the network of streets,
routes and paths, squares, focal points, neighbourhoods, domains, symbolic centres, boundaries, public
monuments, vistas, enclosures, the presence of nature (parks, water), the continuity of street fronts, the
significance of street corners and so on. These elements are matched against the functional zoning of
the city into business, industry, housing, entertainment, government areas and in general into the
complex mix of functions which make up the city itself and its transport infrastructure. The other factor
is that the City is the product of continuous development through many historical periods and that this
constrains the present and future development of the City. The City is layers of memory slowly
transforming through time a geological - sedimentary (deep) structure as society after society writes
out its own character in physical form. Theory looks at new types of city structures which incorporate
new urban technologies superhighways, trains airports and the changing relation of the countryside to
the City.

l)

Architecture and Ecology

Ecology deals with the relationship between an organism and its environment. That is, how well the
organism responds (adapts) to changing conditions in that environment. The behaviour of the organism.
Its ability to respond to heat, cold, light, its use of energy in order to survive. Or, in the worst case its
tendency to destroy its environment and thus destroy itself. In architectural terms, these factors are
expressed in the form and materials a building uses and its ability to conserve and use energy generated
by the natural environment or its own internal processes. An ecologically sensible building will be
designed on the basis that it can deal with the local climate (sunlight or cold) without the need for
expensive importation of energy (electricity), eg. in the form of air conditioning. The form of a building is
dictated by many factors (programme, site, technology, finance, etc.), ecology is another factor which
constrains (controls) the final shape of a building. For instance the design of a building can be influenced
by the need for shading from sunlight, thermal insulation of its walls, the use of natural ventilation
techniques, natural air circulation, orientation, solar panels, re-cycling of its water, low technology
construction techniques, use of traditional or low energy building methods and materials in certain
regions, the use of internal courtyards, compact layouts or response to the existing topology and
landscape features. Theory of architecture analyses current building technology and design to see how
efficiently new buildings are designed to optimize energy resources and minimize waste.

7.

THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE AS COMMUNICATION

Architecture like any other language represents experience with a combination of particular forms.
In other words, architecture communicates experience. The elements of any communication systems
can be described as signs. That is, something which stands for (represents) something else. The study
of these sign systems, what they mean in combination with each other and the rules by which they can
be combined (the grammar or syntax) is called Semiotics. Architecture can be analysed in semiological
terms as a system of signs (architectural forms) which are drawn from a familiar and generallyunderstood vocabulary (Style) and combined to mean something in particular circumstances. Any
system of communication involves three levels of activity. Semiotics defines these as:

a) SYNTACTICS: the rules which govern the acceptable combination of signs (the syntax or grammar).
In architectural terms this would be the stylistic rules or conventions which govern the combination of a
group of architectural forms. Forms cannot be combined at random. If they are, the result is
meaningless. Syntactic rules are derived from the most recurrent or regular practices of the past. They
are familiar and they become the standard practice, the norm which guides all future acts of
communication.

b) SEMANTICS: the meaning of the signs. What they are supposed to suggest, or the associations they
produce in the observers mind. Meaning refers to how familiar or probable a particular combinations
of signs are. If the form of an object such as a building is totally unfamiliar it is meaningless. Semantics

deals with the difference between the POSSIBLE as against the PROBABLE (the familiar or
understandable). Spoken language is very similar. There are an infinite number of possible sounds or
words. However, only a few of these will have any semantic use. The others will be meaningless and
thus useless. There are an infinite number of possible architectural forms that can be imagined and
built. However, there are only a few of these which can have any meaning or significance in
architecture.

c)
PRAGMATICS: all communication has an intention, a goal or a function. Each act of
communication (such as design of a single building) is a report or a message about an event. In
architecture the building is a meaningful report IN BUILT FORM about the relations between the
different parts of an institution. (the event). In order to carry out the task of communication it is
necessary that the message be clearly understood. This is the pragmatics of communication. It defines
the communicational PURPOSE of the message the likelihood of its being understood and acted upon
in a particular context or the circumstances. In different circumstances (context) the same message (the
same building design ) will mean something completely different. Pragmatics governs the selection (of
signs) and combination of those signs in each particular case. Pragmatics compares the intended
message/meaning with the actual message/meaning.

Communication involves both codes and messages. In architectural terms, a code is a style a set of
TYPICAL ways of doing things, while the building is a message an ACTUAL way of doing things. The
code - which limits the possible arrangement of the elements of a message is not a separate thing from
the message. It is the name for the most typical or probable features present in the many messages
(buildings) which are created in the system of communication (architecture). A code or an architectural
style is a VIRTUAL entity (thing) a statistical concept scanned out of the similarities between the many
elements of the real world. Remember: a style is a similarity of form between a large number of
buildings. So too a code is a similarity of form between a large number of messages.

8.

CONCLUSION

Theory of architecture is the tool by which architects check or compare the goals of architecture with its
actual achievements. It is the critical function which regulates the practice of architecture and attempts
to bring it back into line with its function of accurately representing social experience.

In many cases Theory of Architecture is presented as a WRITTEN COMMENTARY (a text) on the physical
or visual reality of architecture its buildings. However, it can also be presented in the form of a VISUAL
COMMENTARY drawings, which propose alternative or imaginary architectures, or new directions for

existing architectures. In both cases Theory can be defined as the regulatory function of architecture, or
perhaps in a moral sense - its conscience.