Unified Architectural Theory: Chapter 3 | ArchDaily

11/3/15, 7:03 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

Unified
Theory: Chapter 3
BookmarkArchitectural
this picture!

11

NOV

2013

by Nikos Salingaros
News Articles
Unified Architectural Theory
Nikos Salingaros

Bookmark

22
Like

47

MORE
ARTICLES

Tweet

11

Interior of the Horagolla Stables by Geoffrey Bawa, an example of architecture whose "form
language blends and connects with Pattern Language" . Image Dominic Sansoni/Three
Blind Men Photography

We will be publishing Nikos Salingaros book, Unified Architectural Theory, in a series of

installments, making it digitally, freely available for students and architects around the world.
The following chapter posits that architecture's geometric structure determines its "vitality," a
quality that should be the basis of architectural critique; it also explains If you missed them,
make sure to read the introduction, Chapter One, Chapter 2A, and Chapter 2B first.

The perceived quality of life in buildings and urban spaces comes from the geometry (the
form of structures on all scales, and their coherence), and how that geometry connects to
the individual. It also catalyzes interactions among people if it is done successfully.
MORE ARTICLES

The easiest way to perceive this quality of life is to compare pairs of objects or settings
and judge intuitively which one has more life. After a series of such experiments, it
becomes obvious that degree of life in architecture arises from geometrical structure.

MOST
VISITED
Famous Landmarks
Reimagined with Paper
Cutouts

However, the perceived life has nothing to do with formal geometry. It arises rather from
configurations, the complexity and patterns in a situation; often unexpected juxtapositions
and shapes that work very well, and that usually evolved over time and were not planned at

Architecture News

the start.

A buildings geometry is a result of applying a particular form language chosen by the

House in Toyonaka / Tato

Architects

architect. This will determine, to a large extent, the emotional and physiological response of
the user. A form language can aim at maximizing the perceived degree of life in the

Selected Projects

building. Otherwise it can have other, entirely distinct objectives, depending on the
preference of the architect who employs it or creates it.

A form language includes the basic elements: floors, walls, ceilings, volumes and their
Architectural composition within the context of a particular form language enables design in

Elementary School in Tel

Aviv / Auerbach Halevy
Architects

that idiom.

Selected Projects

subdivision, windows, materials, ornamentation, and the rules for combining them.

Every traditional architecture has its own form language: more accurately, a group of related
languages, since languages evolve with variations over time and across locality. The
language depends upon climate and local materials. It is also a continuation of traditional
arts, social practices, and material culture.

http://www.archdaily.com/447456/unified-architectural-theory-chapter-3

MOST VISITED
PRODUCTS
Page 1 of 6

Unified Architectural Theory: Chapter 3 | ArchDaily

11/3/15, 7:03 PM

and all traditional evolved form languages do so. Nevertheless, a form language could have

Metal 2.0
Apavisa

other goals and not be adaptive.

Porcelain Stoneware

Architecture is adaptive if its form language blends and connects with the Pattern language,

TerraClad Ceramic
Sunshade System
Boston Valley Terra Cotta
Ceramics

Facade panel linea

EQUITONE
Fiber Cements / Cements

Receive the best architecture, every

day, via email.
Daily Newsletter
Fortnightly Materials Newsletter
YOUR EMAIL

SUBSCRIBE

Synagogue de la rue Pave Paris, 1913, designed by Hector Guimard, is an example of

architecture whose "form language blends and connects with Pattern Language". Image
Flickr CC User designwallah

The 20th century witnessed a new phenomenon: form languages that were detached from
Pattern languages. Those form languages were no longer part of an adaptive system of
architecture, but became self-sufficient entities. They were validated from artistic, political,
and philosophical criteria.

Another related phenomenon that arises when architectural practice is not rooted in a
Pattern language is the replacement of an evolved Pattern (which accommodates human
life and sensibilities) by its opposite an Antipattern. An Antipattern could be dysfunctional,
and could cause anxiety and physical distress. A form language could attach itself to Antipatterns, but that of course does not make it adaptive.

Form languages can be studied separately from their link to Pattern languages. Form
languages can have different degrees of internal complexity. Just like written and spoken
languages, form languages are characterized by their size of vocabulary; richness of
combinatoric rules for generating new expressions; adaptability to the situation at hand,
which might be novel. Or a form language could be very primitive, with limited vocabulary
and combinatoric rules.

A particular form language may have very poor adaptation, but could appeal visually. This
feature is sufficient to assure its survival in contemporary society, especially since the
communications revolution. It is doubtful whether this would have occurred in a historic
traditional society where resources were scarcer.

In contrast to historical times, todays global consumerist culture treats a form language as a
commercial product. Thus, its success depends upon both the marketing strategies of its
proponents, and profits to be made by those who apply it. Adaptivity does not enter the
equation.

A form language lives or dies based on rather commonplace considerations: (i) Someone
decides to use that form language for a new building, and (ii) society values an older form
language sufficiently to leave its examples alone. Decisions on new buildings could be
based on adaptive value, how comfortable people feel in a building, ease of use, proven
environment for human productivity, proven durability of materials, practicality for re-use,
etc. Or a client could use totally different motives, such as perceived marketing appeal, reuse of a commercially-successful typology in speculative building, cost cutting, maximization
http://www.archdaily.com/447456/unified-architectural-theory-chapter-3

Page 2 of 6

Unified Architectural Theory: Chapter 3 | ArchDaily

11/3/15, 7:03 PM

of usable space, etc.

Another crucial factor is the inertia that comes from embedded bureaucratic costs invested
by the banking, construction, and insurance industries. These all resist technical changes in
their established way of doing business with architecture and construction.

For the second factor, which presents threats to conservation, every generation faces the
siren call of giving older buildings and urban spaces a face-lift to follow new fashions.
Human societies crave to appear to be up-to-date, and decide what to sacrifice in pursuing
this desire.

Putting aside questions of adaptation, it is essential to catalogue and classify disparate form
languages. A single building, group of buildings, the work of a single architect, or an entire
architectural movement depend upon a form language. The fact of being built provides
information on the form language. Another architect can extract the form language by
studying built examples.

In rare cases, an architect writes down the rules for the form language, so that it is then
easy for someone else to apply it. Most of the time, however, the rules have to be derived
from the buildings themselves.

Architects can learn a form language, and then use it to build many buildings, without
altering the language in any way. Other architects vary a form language to different degrees,
introducing their own changes, which may be adaptive or not. Others still invent their own
form language so that their buildings become a brand. This helps achieve success in an
age of corporate branding.

Some architects can go through their careers switching from one form language to another,
either traditionally-evolved form languages, or ones that they themselves have invented. For
this reason, it is not always possible to identify an architect with a specific form language.

All traditional form languages had to evolve in conjunction with adaptive design, and this
presupposes a certain complexity threshold. Just as all human languages share an
underlying complexity that permits a variety of expression. Newer form languages, however,
follow no such constraint.

There are many examples of form languages from the 20th century that fall below the
complexity threshold. That is true for two related reasons: (1) the language has been
invented and has not evolved, and (2) it did not have to adapt to a Pattern language.

I will use a biological analogy for architecture and its two languages. We consider the
Pattern language as the metabolizing part of organisms, and the form language as the
replicating portion of an organisms structure. Architecture is thus directly identified as a
living process (more on this later). Humans interact with buildings in order to use them and
repair them, an analogous process to metabolism.

The replicating function is taken care of by the form language. A type of architecture
survives only by generating copies and variations of itself using a specific form language.
Just as with organisms, however, a replicating entity does not need to metabolize.

Viruses are replicating organic complexes that do not metabolize. For this reason, they
therefore have a far lower complexity content. As a result, they replicate far more efficiently
than more complex metabolizing organisms can.

This course attempts to present a genuine theory of architecture, as the notions we study
have predictions that can be verified. Simpler forms propagate more rapidly and can end up
displacing more complex entities. Indeed, simplified form languages using industrial forms
and materials proliferated in the 20th century, replacing form languages that were adaptive
hence more complex.

There is another phenomenon that now has some sort of explanation: why Pattern language
is not routinely taught in architecture schools. The reason is that, since the form languages
of Modernism did not couple with Pattern language, the latter ceased to be of any interest to
a profession that focused exclusively on Modernism.

Pattern language determines the human adaptation of buildings, however, and the
connection of buildings to nature. In order to create a responsive and sustainable built
environment, Pattern language has to once again take its central position in architecture.

The 20th century form languages were, and continue to be, a tremendous marketing

http://www.archdaily.com/447456/unified-architectural-theory-chapter-3

Page 3 of 6

Unified Architectural Theory: Chapter 3 | ArchDaily

11/3/15, 7:03 PM

success. They have generated enormous sales and profits for the architects and builders
who use them, and greater brand recognition. But that does not mean they had the best
interests of the user and the environment in mind. In fact, the reasons habitually given for
those form languages success, like new industrial materials that permitted greater spanned
spaces and building heights, already occurred at the end of the 19th century. Those factors
pre-date and have nothing to do with the characteristic modernist look.

Today, with the looming ecological collapse, our attitudes are less narrowly profitoriented
for the strict benefit of individuals or small groups. We are more concerned with
sustainability in the real sense, not just with gizmos added on, and for society as a whole.

Connection to the deep needs of human beings and the natural order brings us back to
reconsidering using Pattern language once again. We would like to be able to distinguish
between form languages that connect to nature, from those that are merely fashionable
symbols of success. Such symbols are based upon criteria set by others, but they are not
expressions of deep human values.

Bookmark this picture!

Victor Horta's 1898 house and studio, now known as the Horta Museum, is an example of
architecture whose "form language blends and connects with Pattern Language". Image
Flickr CC User mksfca

Further Reading:

Christopher Alexander, The Phenomenon of Life, Chapter 2, Degrees of Life (Center for
Environmental Structure, Berkeley, 2001).

Christopher Alexander, sampler from A Pattern Language, available online at

http://www.patternlanguage.com/apl/aplsample/aplsample.htm

Or see the book itself: C. Alexander, S. Ishikawa, M. Silverstein, M. Jacobson, I. FiksdahlKing, and S. Angel A Pattern Language (Oxford University Press, New York, 1977). Spanish
version: Un Lenguaje de Patrones: Ciudades, Edificios, Construcciones (Gustavo Gili,
Barcelona, 1980).

Nikos Salingaros, A Theory of Architecture, Chapter 11, Two Languages for Architecture
(Umbau-Verlag, Solingen, 2006).

Order the International edition of Unified Architectural Theory here, and the US edition
here.

Cite:
http://www.archdaily.com/447456/unified-architectural-theory-chapter-3

Page 4 of 6