A Theory of Architecture Part 1: Pattern Language vs.

Form Language | ArchDaily

11/3/15, 7:04 PM

World

About

Contact

Submit

Advertise

ArchDaily | Broadcasting

the world's
most visited
architecture website
Architecture
Worldwide

Projects

News

Articles

Materials

Interviews

Competitions

Events

Classics

More

Search ArchDaily

Log in | Sign up

A Theory of Architecture Part 1: Pattern Language

vs.
Formthis
Language
Bookmark
picture!

23

MAR

2014

by Nikos Salingaros
News Articles
Unified Architectural Theory
Nikos Salingaros
Theory and History

Bookmark

860
Like

126

MORE
ARTICLES

Tweet

384

MORE ARTICLES

MOST
VISITED
Famous Landmarks
Reimagined with Paper
Cutouts

Galleria di Diana in Venaria Royal Palace, an example of Classical architecture. The

Classical Language is an example of an "extremely successful form language". Image
Courtesy of shutterstock.com

Architecture News

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

House in Toyonaka / Tato

Architects

this serialization and publish three excerpts from another of Salingaros books: A THEORY

Selected Projects

OF ARCHITECTURE. The following excerpt, the first, explains the terms Pattern
Language (as well asantipatterns") and Form Language.

Elementary School in Tel

Aviv / Auerbach Halevy
Architects

Design in architecture and urbanism is guided by two distinct complementary languages: a

pattern language, and a form language.

Selected Projects
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

http://www.archdaily.com/488929/a-theory-of-architecture-part-1-pattern-language-vs-form-language

MOST VISITED
PRODUCTS
Page 1 of 4

A Theory of Architecture Part 1: Pattern Language vs. Form Language | ArchDaily

11/3/15, 7:04 PM

architectural traditions, or styles. The problem is that not all form languages are adaptive to

Metal 2.0
Apavisa

human sensibilities. Those that are not adaptive can never connect to a pattern language.

Porcelain Stoneware

human uses rather than from images. Different form languages correspond to different

Every adaptive design method combines a pattern language with a viable form language,
otherwise it inevitably creates alien environments.

TerraClad Ceramic
Sunshade System
Boston Valley Terra Cotta

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

Ceramics

practical, meaningful, nourishing, human results.

In the absence of a design method and accompanying criteria for judging a design, things

Facade panel linea

EQUITONE

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

Fiber Cements / Cements

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

Receive the best architecture, every

day, via email.

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.

Daily Newsletter
Fortnightly Materials Newsletter
YOUR EMAIL

SUBSCRIBE

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.

http://www.archdaily.com/488929/a-theory-of-architecture-part-1-pattern-language-vs-form-language

Page 2 of 4

A Theory of Architecture Part 1: Pattern Language vs. Form Language | ArchDaily

11/3/15, 7:04 PM

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 .

Image of Galleria di Diana via shutterstock.com

Cite:
Nikos Salingaros. "A Theory of Architecture Part 1: Pattern Language vs. Form Language" 23 Mar 2014.
ArchDaily. Accessed 3 Nov 2015. <http://www.archdaily.com/488929/a-theory-of-architecture-part-1pattern-language-vs-form-language/>

http://www.archdaily.com/488929/a-theory-of-architecture-part-1-pattern-language-vs-form-language

Page 3 of 4