Dawes and Ostwald City Territ Archit (2017) 4:17

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-017-0073-1

RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access

Christopher Alexander’s A Pattern

Language: analysing, mapping and classifying
the critical response
Michael J. Dawes*  and Michael J. Ostwald 

Abstract 
A Pattern Language by Christopher Alexander is renowned for providing simple, conveniently formatted, humanist
solutions to complex design problems ranging in scale from urban planning through to interior design. This text is
also believed to be the most widely read architectural treatise ever published. Despite this, there is also little acknowl-
edgement in its popular reception that it is only one part of a trilogy of works documenting Alexander’s ‘second
theory’ of architecture. Thus, while A Pattern Language is widely referenced in architectural scholarship, most of these
references simply acknowledge its existence and fail to engage with its content. Furthermore, the literature that does
critically engage with Alexander’s theory, challenging its ideas and assumptions, is often difficult to find, and the criti-
cisms are diverse and complex. The intent of this paper is to facilitate a deeper understanding of these criticisms and
the relationships between them. The 28 criticisms identified in past research are organised hierarchically in this paper
into three tiers representing those associated with the: (i) conceptualisation, (ii) development and documentation
and, (iii) implementation and outcomes of Alexander’s theory. The relationships between these criticisms are then
mapped diagrammatically thereby forming the basis for thematic groupings within each hierarchical tier. This organi-
sation reveals that only two criticisms relate to the concept of pattern languages in isolation, while the remainder
arise, directly or indirectly, from Alexander’s idiosyncratic ontological and epistemological positions. The conclusion
analyses the relationships between the criticisms to develop a holistic and understanding of where the problems in
Alexander’s theory might lie.
Keywords:  Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language, The Timeless Way of Building, The Oregon Experiment, Design
method, Critical response

Introduction on Alexander’s ‘second theory’ of architecture, which

Massive social, technical and economic changes during appeared in the form of three canonical texts, The Time-
the nineteenth century provided the catalyst for the rise less Way of Building (Alexander 1979), A Pattern Lan-
of modernism in architecture, and the creation of some of guage (Alexander et al. 1977), and the Oregon Experiment
the world’s most iconic buildings. However, the relentless (Alexander et al. 1975). It must be noted that Alexander’s
pursuit of the modernist aesthetic also produced exam- research actually constitutes a single, slowly evolving
ples of uncomfortable and inhospitable spaces. Chris- theory of architecture that spans his entire career. How-
topher Alexander was amongst the most vocal critics ever, these three texts represent a stable, middle stage in
of these spaces and responded to them by devoting his Alexander’s research and collectively provide a sufficiently
career to developing three unique and closely related the- self-contained set of ideas to be described (for the ease of
ories of architectural and urban design. This paper focuses the following discussion) as his ‘second theory’.
Alexander’s second theory is significant for its attempt
to facilitate a paradigm shift in architecture that would
*Correspondence: [email protected]
School of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Newcastle, replace the conventional, subjective and explanatory,
University Drive, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia

© The Author(s) 2017. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license,
and indicate if changes were made.
Dawes and Ostwald City Territ Archit (2017) 4:17 Page 2 of 14

theory with an objective, evidence-based, theory that and piecemeal adaptation  to changing circumstances
directly generates a design (Grabow 1983; Gelernter which brings all the ‘forces’ impacting a design into a har-
2000). A Pattern Language is significant for demysti- monious balance. In contrast, contemporary architecture
fying complex socio-spatial considerations through a results from the imposition of formal rules and abstract
simple building block format which makes this content concepts upon a single design episode, creating an out-
accessible to non-professionals, and is one reason why come where the ‘forces’ are unbalanced. Alexander’s solu-
this text is believed to be the most widely read architec- tion to this problem was a complex mathematical method
tural treatise ever published (Lea 1994; Alexander 1996; for balancing all the ‘forces’ impacting a design. When
Kohn 2002; Saunders 2002b; Hermann 2004; Mehaffy applied in practice, Alexander discovered that this pro-
2008; Silva and Paraizo 2008). A Pattern Language is also cess was too demanding for all but the largest design pro-
credited with inspiring the development of the object- jects. However, Alexander also discovered that particular
oriented programming languages used to create the ensembles of ‘forces’ encapsulated generic situations that
majority of current computer software in addition to par- occurred repeatedly throughout the built environment,
tially inspiring the New Urbanist movement. and that resolving these forces would yield generic solu-
Despite the influence and impact of Alexander’s second tions that could be adapted to an infinite variety of spe-
theory, it has been rejected or ignored by many archi- cific circumstances (Broadbent 1980; Grabow 1983). In
tects, and many academic references to the theory sim- order to pursue this line of thinking, Alexander secured
ply acknowledge its existence rather than attempting to funding to establish the Centre for Environmental Struc-
engage with its ideas. Nevertheless, the scholars who do ture and the concept of predefined generic solutions
engage with the theory have identified substantial flaws, evolved to become the ‘patterns’ in his ‘second theory’
many of which are difficult to untangle without a sub- of architecture (Clavan 1979; Grabow 1983; Kohn 2002;
stantial loss of meaning (Dovey 1990). Indeed, several of Veloso 2014).
the criticisms cited are acknowledged, if not accepted, by Alexander’s second theory, itself a collaborative pro-
Alexander, as part of various counterarguments he offers. cess, was developed across three canonical books; The
Furthermore, despite the proselytising tone of A Pattern Oregon Experiment (Alexander et  al. 1975), A Pattern
Language, its introductory discussion states that it was Language (Alexander et al. 1977) and The Timeless Way of
published as a work in progress and encourages readers Building (Alexander 1979). Collectively these three works
to continue to refine the patterns contained therein and constitute one of the 1960s and 1970s most sustained
develop their own new patterns. criticisms of modernism. During this era Bernard Rudof-
Thus, Alexander’s second theory of architecture is sky’s Architecture Without Architects (Rudofsky 1964),
relatively poorly understood and this paper is dedicated and Amos Rapoport’s House, Form and Culture (Rapo-
to bringing clarity to the myriad of criticisms levelled port 1969) and The Meaning of the Built Environment
against it. In undertaking this endeavour, 28 criticisms (Rapoport 1982) argued that intuitive and unconscious
are identified and organised into three hierarchical lev- processes were vital components of traditional and ver-
els corresponding to the (i) conceptual foundations of nacular architecture (Kohn 2002; Bhatt 2010). In a simi-
the theory, (ii) its development and documentation, and lar vein, Kevin Lynch’s The Image of the City (Lynch 1960)
(iii) its implementation and outcomes. Criticisms are also and Jane Jacobs’s The Death and Life of Great American
organised thematically and diagrammatically to reveal Cities (Jacobs 1961), focused on the importance of cog-
how they relate to each other. Through this process the nitive cohesion, vitality and piecemeal growth as part of
paper differentiates between criticisms of pattern lan- a vibrant built environment (Kohn 2002; Bhatt 2010). All
guages in general, and those which are levelled specifi- of these concepts were central to Alexander’s second the-
cally at Alexander’s work. ory of architecture, which again focused on the inherent
beauty of traditional urban spaces and buildings.
Background Alexander believes “[t]here is a central quality which
Christopher Alexander’s ‘first theory’ of architectural is the root criterion of life and spirit in a man, a town,
beauty was presented in his Harvard doctoral thesis and a building, or a wilderness. This quality is objective and
later published as Notes on the Synthesis of Form (Alex- precise, but it cannot be named” (Alexander 1979, p 19).
ander 1964). The inspiration for this work is Alexander’s The first volume of Alexander’s theory—The Timeless
belief that the buildings of traditional societies are inher- Way of Building—details his belief that this unnamed
ently more beautiful than contemporary architecture. quality is the source of the inherent beauty of traditional
Alexander alleges that this disparity arises from the use of architecture. Here it is argued that the shared values and
radically different design processes. Traditional buildings customs of traditional societies provide a guiding frame-
are the product of a communally-shared value system work, or design language, that restrains the many small
Dawes and Ostwald City Territ Archit (2017) 4:17 Page 3 of 14

acts of individual construction and integrates them into that supports it. The fourth section prescribes and dia-
a larger cohesive environment. Despite being unnamed, grams the actions required to ensure the emergence of
Alexander proposed several descriptors for this quality— the ‘quality without a name’ and the final section is a list
‘beauty’, ‘alive’, ‘whole’, ‘comfortable’, ‘free’, ‘exact’, ‘egoless’, of other patterns that help to complete it.
and ‘eternal’—and discusses how each captures cer- Alexander’s third volume—The Oregon Experiment—
tain dimensions of the quality, even though they are too outlines the application of this theory in the design of a
imprecise to describe it perfectly. campus for the University of Oregon. This text focuses
Alexander argues that this quality exists, to some primarily on bureaucratic processes that are required to
extent, in every individual, and this allows us to recognise ensure that small scale projects and piecemeal develop-
its presence in the environment and each other. Thus, ment can occur in large scale projects for a single client.
“the central scientific fact” (Alexander 1979, p 54) of Ultimately however, Alexander rejected his second
Alexander’s second theory of architecture is that a strong theory of architectural beauty as he felt it had too little
reciprocal relationship exists between environments and generative power and too little focus on geometry. Three
their inhabitants. The theory states that places which decades later he proposed a ‘third theory’ of beauty,
exhibit this quality will awaken it in people, and people which replaced patterns with the generic concept of ‘cen-
who have found the quality will embed it into the places tres’ and their transformations, in addition to removing
they help to create. Both people and places will become much of the neatly packaged social and architectural con-
healthy, alive, whole, and self-maintaining if they have tent that makes his second theory so compelling (Alex-
the ‘quality without a name’, and will be ‘sick’, ‘dead’, un- ander 2002b, c, 2004, 2005; Adams and Tiesdall 2007).
whole, and self-destroying without it. Despite rejecting his own second theory, it remains his
According to Alexander the ‘quality without a name’ Alexander’s most well-known work, and it continues to
is only created when people employ the timeless way of have an enduring influence and impact to the present day
building. This requires an ‘activated populace’ who par- (Lea 1994; Alexander 1996; Saunders 2002b; Hermann
ticipate in shaping their environment through a demo- 2004; Mehaffy 2008; Silva and Paraizo 2008).
cratic process based on common traditions, a shared
design language and a society-wide dialogue. However, Criticisms of Alexander’s second theory
Alexander also argues that the traditional languages and of architecture
values that once guided this process have been lost over The following sections review the criticisms of Alexan-
time, or else have become so corrupted as to be utterly der’s second theory of architecture. Many of these criti-
dysfunctional (Salingaros 2000). Therefore, the second cisms focus on A Pattern Language, while others also
volume of the trilogy, A Pattern Language was intended address problems found in The Timeless Way of Building
to redress this issue by providing a replacement design and The Oregon Experiment. The intent of this paper is to
language which forms the functional basis of Alexander’s facilitate a deeper understanding of Alexander’s second
theory. theory by explaining and classifying these criticisms and
A Pattern Language details 253 patterns which serve then mapping the relationships that exist between them.
as generic guiding principles for design. “Each pattern Therefore, each criticism is assigned a number [#] and
describes a problem which occurs over and over again organised into a three-tiered hierarchy corresponding to
in our environment, and then describes the core of the the conceptualisation, development, and implementation
solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use of Alexander’s theory. Criticisms are further organised
this solution a million times over, without ever doing it into thematic groupings within each tier and the relation-
the same way twice” (Alexander et  al. 1977, p x). Pat- ships between patterns signified by listing the number of
terns range in scale from regional planning through to any antecedent [A#] and subsequent [S#] criticisms. This
interior design, and adapting their solutions to local cir- is significant because many of the criticisms are founded
cumstances and synthesising those into larger designs, on, or lead to, other critical responses. However, it is also
ensures that all forces are balanced in a way that facili- important to realise that these antecedent [A#] and sub-
tates the emergence of ‘quality without a name’. In order sequent [S#] links, are determined by the scale and logic
to enable this synthesis, each pattern in the language fol- of the criticism, not the date when the criticism was pub-
lows a consistent format of five sections. First is its iden- lished, or any references it might make to other critical
tification, including name, number, confidence rating, scholarship. Furthermore, the complex interrelationships
and a photograph of a typical example. Second is a list of between these criticisms of Alexander’s theory are said to
connections to other patterns it helps to complete. The be difficult to untangle without a significant loss of mean-
third section comprises a description of the context in ing (Dovey 1990), and thus the following discussion rep-
which the pattern is relevant and the empirical evidence resents only one possible mapping of these criticisms and
Dawes and Ostwald City Territ Archit (2017) 4:17 Page 4 of 14

their relationships. As this process has never been under- These groupings also emerge organically from the exami-
taken before, this mapping may also provide a starting nation of the individual criticisms. For example the
point for future, alternative approaches to understanding ‘scholarship’ group includes criticisms which together
the possible limitations of Alexander’s theory. may facilitate a discussion about scholarly writing quality
The procedure for evaluating and mapping criticisms in the context of Alexander’s second theory. In this way,
involves three stages. First, a literature review to identify mapping and classifying the criticisms of Alexander’s
criticisms. Second, an examination and classification of theory provides greater understanding of the theory.
the criticisms. Third, identifying and mapping the con- The final stage of this procedure identifies and maps
nections between criticisms. the antecedent and subsequent connections between
The first stage of this research involves an extensive criticisms and demonstrates that many criticisms of
review of literature discussing Alexander’s work. While Alexander’s theory have roots in his idiosyncratic onto-
the focus of the present research is Alexander’s second logical and epistemological positions. The phenom-
theory, the literature search includes research relating enon wherein several broad criticisms broach multiple
to Alexander’s broader body of work as it often includes, hierarchical levels, offers a useful starting point for this
and provides insight into, the criticisms of his second mapping. In other cases, the literature discusses similar
theory. criticisms in the context of different hierarchical lev-
The second stage examines the criticisms and classifies els which provides a basis for mapping, while in a small
them into one of three hierarchical tiers, and where appli- number of cases a direct logical connection means that if
cable, organises them into thematic groups. The highest the higher criticism occurs then the lower criticism also
tier contains criticisms related to the conceptualisation occurs. Regardless of which approach informs the iden-
of Alexander’s theory and includes those associated with tification of antecedent and subsequent criticisms, the
his idiosyncratic ontological and epistemological posi- decision regarding whether a connections exists is based
tions. The second tier focuses on criticisms relating to the on an interpretative analysis rather than a quantifiable
actual development of his second theory and comprises metric. In some cases one criticism is the antecedent of
three thematic groups relating to scholastic standards, a single criticism within a thematic group and in other
the testing of patterns, and the reasoning supporting his cases one criticism is the antecedent of the entire group.
decisions. The final or lowest tier documents criticisms These differences are represented in the diagrams by the
relating to the implementation of the theory including connecting arrow either pointing to the circle containing
claims that it is overly controlling, flawed, and unsuc- a criticism number or the arrow pointing to the dotted
cessful. The three tiers which make up this classifica- outline of a thematic group.
tion system are not predetermined; rather they emerge The following sections present the criticisms identified
organically from the criticisms which often focus on one from the literature. In each hierarchical tier the criticisms
of these aspects of Alexander’s theory. are grouped, discussed, any antecedent and subsequent
There are, however, several criticisms which are broad criticisms identified, and presented in diagrammatic and
enough in scope to include aspects of more than one tabular form.
tier. An example of such a criticism is the argument that
Alexander’s theory often excludes non-western exam- Conceptualisation criticisms
ples of architecture. Some of the literature discussing this There are four major criticisms of the conceptual foun-
criticism points to this tendency as evidence of a limiting dations of Alexander’s second theory of architecture
ontology that impacts the conceptualisation of the theory. (Table 1). These are raised separately by 15 scholars, and
Other literature describes how this limitation impacts the in several cases Alexander, or one of his co-authors, has
development of Alexander’s theory, and results in some responded to these criticisms providing a counterpoint to
patterns being based on faulty evidence and argumen- consider. Three of these criticisms [1, 2, 3] are ontological
tation. The more exhaustive literature discusses both of in nature and are closely associated with his exclusive or
these considerations. Therefore the following classifica- inflexible world-view, whereas the last [4] is epistemolog-
tion of criticisms split such considerations among the ical and relates to the legitimisation of his theory (Fig. 1).
relevant tiers in order to facilitate the discussion of each The first ontological issue with the conceptualisation
aspect within the context of similar criticisms, at the of Alexander’s theory focuses on his rejection of pluralist
risk of giving the appearance that some arguments recur values [1] and subjective world-view, in favour of a singu-
throughout the text. lar and objective one. This universalising tendency is seen
Within each hierarchical tier, criticisms are organised in his description of the ‘quality without a name’. In The
into thematic groupings representing broader concepts Timeless Way of Building (Alexander 1979), Alexander
intended to facilitate discussion and understanding. refers to this quality as ‘the great self ’ or ‘the void’ and
Dawes and Ostwald City Territ Archit (2017) 4:17 Page 5 of 14

Table 1  Criticisms of Alexander’s second theory of architecture: conceptualisation

[#] Issue A# Criticism S# Source

1 Ontology – Rejecting pluralistic values confuses 3 (Saunders 2002a, 2003; Bhatt 2010)
subjective and objective phenomena
2 Ontology – Alternate experiences and social, politi- 3 (Montgomery 1970; Broadbent 1980;
cal and economic realities are incom- Davis 1983; Dovey 1990; Salingaros 2000,
patible with Alexander’s world view Elsheshtawy 2001; Kohn 2002; Saunders
2002a; Walker 2003; Mehaffy 2008; Bhatt
2010; Kalb 2014)
3 Ontology 1, 2 The timeless way of building is the only 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, (Broadbent 1980; Protzen 1980; Dovey 1990;
valid means for creating beautiful 17,18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Lang 1994)
environments
4 Epistemol- – Alexander’s definition of ‘science’ 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12, 13, (Alexander 2002a,b; Saunders 2002a)
ogy excludes many tenets of scholarly 14, 18
research
[#], criticism identifier; #A, antecedent criticism; #S, subsequent criticism

Fig. 1  Criticism connections and groupings of Alexander’s second theory of architecture: conceptualisation. Numbers correspond to criticism num-
bers in text and tables, dotted lines indicate groups and sub-groups of criticisms, arrows point from antecedent criticisms to secondary criticisms or
groups of criticisms

argues that it is present, to some extent, in every indi- influences [2]. Alexander’s ideal lifestyle is “comfort-
vidual, whilst being much more prevalent in traditional able, easygoing, sensuously pleasurable, communal, and
and pre-enlightenment societies. This fundamental and full of leisure time for socializing and solitude” (Saun-
supposedly universal quality has clear parallels with theo- ders 2002a, p 94). This lifestyle specifically excludes
logical values leading to the suggestion that Alexander’s any form of external controls, inhibitions, rules, mor-
world view is inspired by a mystical experience (Broad- als, or fears. While this utopian vision informs the basis
bent 1980). Furthermore, the very idea that all human- for the patterns in his language, it also excludes many
ity shares an innate and common value system is deeply social, political and economic realities (Elsheshtawy
problematic. Values and attitudes are developed and 2001). Furthermore, Alexander’s ontology blinds him to
learnt through a combination of human sensory engage- the possibility that not everybody aspires to this lifestyle
ment, education, and enculturation. Indeed, human (Broadbent 1980; Saunders 2002a, 2003; Bhatt 2010).
experience, which is a core system for the development With these views as crucial precursors to his theory,
of values, is necessarily individual. Yet, problematically, Alexander is effectively forced to condemn or reject
Alexander assumes that all people experience the same experiences or desires that failed to conform (Saunders
response to a given stimulus (Dovey 1990; Kohn 2002). 2002a). Thus, Alexander rejects his own architectural
Adopting this ontological position allows Alexander to training, prototype patterns developed by students, and
claim that certain environments are objectively superior idiosyncratic contemporary architecture, all of which he
to others—that beauty is an objective fact—and there- summarily dismisses as ‘absurd’ (Alexander 1979; Kohn
fore any disputes over personal opinion, taste or aesthetic 2002; Saunders 2002a). This ‘disturbing narrowness’—
preference are resolved by appealing to this single value particularly regarding economic realities and the willing-
(Kohn 2002). ness to reject the preferences of  others—is an integral
The second concern with Alexander’s theory is the lim- component of Alexander’s conceptualisation of beauty
iting effect of a romanticised world-view, which denies (Montgomery 1970). This exclusive quality also extends
the existence of alternative lifestyles and architectural to the architectural works Alexander cites as examples of
Dawes and Ostwald City Territ Archit (2017) 4:17 Page 6 of 14

good design which are drawn almost entirely from either “You are doing science when you figure out how
Medieval Europe or his own work (Kalb 2014), the latter something works. Especially, if you figure out some-
of which is said to resemble “the hodgepodge stone, half- thing that people have not figured out before. You
timber, and clapboard houses of southern England, where don’t need to dress it up, you just need to work it out.
he grew up” (Kohn 2002, p 34). All the rest is dressing. Pompous language, format
The third ontological problem with Alexander’s theory of summary and text and findings, footnotes, eru-
is the concept that beautiful environments can only be dite references, carefully marshaled precedents—all
created through the timeless way of building [3]. This can those are the trappings of science, the appearance of
be understood as a particularly problematic combination science, not science itself ” (Alexander 2002a, p 3).
of the previous two criticisms [1, 2] wherein Alexander’s
Thus, so far as Alexander is concerned, science is the
personal preferences become the only objective stand-
process of ‘figuring something out’ while the documen-
ard of beauty, and anyone with alternative preferences
tation of that discovery is largely irrelevant. Therefore,
is dismissed as suffering some form of ‘mental defect’
the “material in The Phenomenon of Life and the mate-
(Alexander and Eisenman 1982). Alternately Alexander
rial in A Pattern Language 25  years earlier are both sci-
effectively discounts such views as coming from victims
ence” (Alexander 2002a, p 3). This later claim might be
of ‘mass psychosis’, or people who are ‘brainwashed’,
true, provided you accept Alexander’s work as a series of
thereby explaining their inability to see the obvious and
hypotheses (the desire to ‘figure something out’), rather
objective truth of his pronouncements (Davis 1983;
than proven facts which is the position adopted and rec-
Dovey 1990; Kohn 2002; Saunders 2002a). This inflex-
ommended in the best known attempt to empirically
ible proposition is the source of many damning criticisms
evaluate one of Alexander’s patterns (Kaplan et al. 1987).
of the development and implementation of Alexander’s
This interpretation of Alexander’s work is alluded to in
theory. However, several of these criticisms are partially
the preface of A Pattern Language which states that “each
negated by one sentence in the preface to A Pattern Lan-
pattern may be looked upon as a hypothesis, like one of
guage which notes that its content represents only “one
the hypotheses of science” (Alexander et al. 1977, p xv).
possible pattern language” (Alexander et  al. 1977, p x)
However, the problems inherent in Alexander’s definition
and Alexander encourages readers to refine his patterns
of science are attenuated when they are used to present
and develop new ones. However, confusingly, this preface
the development and documentation of A Pattern Lan-
also offers the counterview that,
guage, because his use of ‘science’ and scientific terms
“[E]very society that is alive and whole, will have imply that Alexander’s pronouncements are proven facts
its own unique and distinct pattern language; and rather than mere hypotheses. In this sense Alexander’s
further, that every individual in such a society will work has been said to be trapped between structuralist
have a unique language, shared in part, but which and phenomenological world views (Elsheshtawy 2001;
as a totality is unique to the mind of the person Kalb 2014). The following section details the criticisms
who has it. In this sense, in a healthy society there levelled against the development and documentation of
will be as many pattern languages as there are peo- Alexander’s theory and demonstrates how many of these
ple—even though these languages are shared and criticisms emerge from the problems [1–4] discussed
similar”(Alexander et al. 1977, p xvi). previously.
Thus, a multitude of patterns and languages are pos-
Development and documentation criticisms
sible, however, as every whole society has a pattern lan-
Following the publication of his second theory, Alex-
guage, the only way to create a vibrant and beautiful
ander bemoaned a lack of engagement from architec-
society is by following the timeless way of building, as
tural and design professionals which might be partially
facilitated by pattern languages. Any alternate means of
explained by criticisms of the development and docu-
shaping society could never produce the quality without
mentation of this theory (Kohn 2002). The barriers pre-
a name, thus there is only one ‘right’ way of building.
venting architects from engaging with Alexander’s theory
The final problem with the conceptualisation of Alex-
can be broadly categorised into three groups (Table  2).
ander’s theory relates to his epistemological position,
The first group [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12] arise from Alex-
particularly his idiosyncratic definition of ‘science’ [4]
ander’s idiosyncratic understanding of ‘science’ (4) and
and subsequent claims that his theory is ‘scientific’. Alex-
subsequent issues including an absence of explicit defini-
ander’s response to a review of his later works provides
tions which makes practical engagement with the theory
a particularly enlightening statement regarding the dif-
difficult. The second group [9,  13, 14] focus on Alexan-
ference between ‘real science’ and ‘phony social science’
der’s ambivalent use of the term ‘empirical’ to describe
which merely resembles scientific inquiry;
Dawes and Ostwald City Territ Archit (2017) 4:17 Page 7 of 14

Table 2  Criticisms of Alexander’s second theory of architecture: development and documentation

[#] Issue #A Criticism #S Source

5 Scholarship—documenta- 4 The definitions of ‘patterns’ and ‘forces’ are – (Lea 1994; Silva and Paraizo 2008)
tion inexplicit
6 Scholarship—documenta- 4 Exemplars of good design are difficult to – (Kohn 2002)
tion comprehend
7 Scholarship—documenta- 4 The efforts and insights of scholars developing – (Broadbent 1980; Elsheshtawy 2001; Kohn 2002)
tion similar themes are rarely acknowledged
8 Scholarship—documenta- 4 Explanations of pattern synthesis and lan- – (Salingaros 2000)
tion guage structure are inadequate
9 Testing 4 Greater numbers of patterns were never 25, 27
Scholarship—documenta- proven to produce superior environments
tion
10 Scholarship—presentation 3, 4 Deliberately provocative statements damage – (King 1993; Kohn 2002)
Alexander’s credibility
11 Scholarship—presentation 3, 4 Universal and dogmatic statements discour- – (Broadbent 1980; Protzen 1980; Kohn 2002;
age engagement and criticism Messina 2003; Walker 2003; Bhatt 2010)
12 Scholarship—presentation 3, 4 The canonical texts physically resemble bibles – (Broadbent 1980; Dovey 1990)
and imply authority that discourages criti-
cism
13 Testing 3, 4 Patterns are driven by ideology and based on 23, 24, 25 (Montgomery 1970; Broadbent 1980; Protzen
faulty evidence, or non-rigorous reasoning 1980; Dovey 1990; Salingaros 2000; Kohn 2002;
Saunders 2002a; Bhatt 2010)
14 Testing – Patterns may be impossible to rigorously test – (Protzen 1980; Salingaros 2000)
15 Logic and reasoning 3 Informational fallacies protect the theory from 21 (Protzen 1980)
contrary information and experience
16 Logic and reasoning 3 The theory’s pre-industrial procurement strat- 23 (Gelernter 1983; Elsheshtawy 2001)
egy is unsuitable for modern societies
17 Logic and reasoning 3 Alexander espouses pure freedom but – (Broadbent 1980; Protzen 1980; Saunders 2002a;
demands adherence to his rules Walker 2003)
18 Logic and reasoning 3, 4 Alexander pursues traditional design through – (Kalb 2014)
anti-traditional means
19 Logic and reasoning 3 The populace have compromised taste due – (Bornstein 2005/2006)
to modernist brainwashing but also prefer
Alexander’s designs
[#], criticism identifier; #A, antecedent criticism; #S, subsequent criticism

his theory, the progenitors of which include both his of ‘science’ [4] and belief that beauty is only achieved
definition of ‘science’ [4] and belief in one ‘right’ way of through the timeless way of building [3].
building [3]  (Fig.  2). The final group [15, 16, 17, 18, 19] Alexander’s canonical texts feature multiple barri-
contains criticisms primarily related to the development ers to those who wish to critically engage with his sec-
of Alexander’s theory, including issues such as faulty rea- ond theory, including the lack of an explicit definition
soning that arise primarily from his argument that there of a ‘pattern’ [5] leaving the term ambiguous and able
is only one right way of building [3]. The problems identi- to encapsulate multiple pre-formal concepts (Lea 1994;
fied in the second and third groups contribute to further Silva and Paraizo 2008). The concept of ‘forces’, which is
criticisms of the implementation and outcomes of Alex- central to both Alexander’s first and second theories of
ander’s theory. architecture, also lack formal definition in his canoni-
The first group of criticisms contains two subsets of cal texts. The best explanations appear in Alexander’s
related problems. The first subset [5, 6, 7, 8, 9] arises secondary texts including The Atoms of Environmental
from Alexander’s definition of ‘science’ [4] and includes Structure (Alexander and Poyner 1967), which implies
accepted features in scholarly writing which are missing that forces are ‘tendencies’, and From a set of Forces to
from the documentation of his theory. The second sub- a Form (Alexander 1966), where the only definition is
set [10, 11, 12] focuses on issues that should normally be found. However, even with access to these additional
absent from scholarly writing but are present in Alex- texts, the definition of a ‘force’ remains ambiguous with
ander’s texts, including the use of disparaging or biased both ‘force’ and ‘tendency’ relying upon the other term
statements, which arise equally from the definitions in their definitions. This circular logic leaves the reader
Dawes and Ostwald City Territ Archit (2017) 4:17 Page 8 of 14

Fig. 2  Criticism connections and groupings of Alexander’s second theory of architecture: development and documentation. Numbers correspond
to criticism numbers in text and tables, dotted lines indicate groups and sub-groups of criticisms, arrows point from antecedent criticisms to sec-
ondary criticisms or groups of criticisms

with only implicit definitions, pieced together from synthesising individual patterns into larger and more
poetic examples of forces. Without access to these sec- complete designs [8] (Salingaros 2000; Saunders 2002a).
ondary texts Alexander’s second theory becomes opaque This process of synthesis is guided by the connections
and this lack of specificity undermines his suggestion that between patterns which unite individual patterns into
new patterns can be developed. a cohesive language that effectively constitutes a large
Alexander’s choice of visual material [6] presents graph. Yet, 38 years pass before the first attempt is made
another barrier to those wishing to engage with his the- to analyse even a portion of this underlying graph struc-
ory. Images of his own designs which evoke the ‘quality ture (Park 2015). The second additional criticism is that
without a name’ are typically blurry and poorly framed, Alexander’s documentation also fails to rigorously dem-
making it difficult to discern how this quality is achieved, onstrate the fundamental premise that beautiful environ-
and without clear examples, architects are unable to ments are comprised of greater numbers of patterns than
adopt, analyse or critique the theory (Kohn 2002). A fur- the contemporary designs which are allegedly destroy-
ther weakness in documentation is Alexander’s refusal to ing the world [9]. This is significant because it has been
acknowledge [7] that like-minded thinkers, such as Jane argued that one means of validating Alexander’s theory
Jacobs and Bernard Rudofsky, were grappling with simi- is to follow the sequence of patterns in reverse, to reveal
lar problems, thereby leaving Alexander’s theory intel- emergent phenomena not contained in any individual
lectually isolated (Elsheshtawy 2001; Kohn 2002; Bhatt pattern (Salingaros 2000). However, this approach does
2010). Alexander’s tendency to dismiss the insights and not provide a link between beauty and the presence of
solutions of others also gives his texts a condescending patterns, a fact which is partially rectified in Alexander’s
tone that further contributes to the alienation of its most later work, A Foreshadowing of 21st Century Art (Alexan-
likely audience, fellow architects and planners (Kohn der 1993). Here ‘centres’ replace patterns as the source of
2002; Saunders 2002a). Each of these issues with the beauty and Alexander demonstrates how the synthesis of
development of Alexander’s theory can be seen as symp- these ‘centres’ can produce a larger ‘whole’ design, and
toms arising from its conceptualisation and his definition that the most beautiful designs contain the greatest syn-
of ‘science’ [4] which rejects rigorous documentation as thesis of these ‘centres’.
the ‘window dressing’ of ‘phony’ science. The second subset of developmental issues resulting in
The fundamental premise that beautiful places can ‘scholarly’ barriers [10, 11, 12] that discourage engage-
be created by synthesising patterns into larger wholes ment with Alexander’s theory may also be connected
highlights two additional criticisms [8, 9] of Alexander’s conceptual issues and arise from his definition of ‘science’
documentation (Lang 1994). The first of these additional [4] and his belief in one ‘right’ way of building [3]. The
criticisms is that Alexander’s canonical texts devote lit- first manifestation of these barriers is Alexander’s use of
tle attention to explaining that the quality emerges from deliberately provocative statements [10] such as the claim
Dawes and Ostwald City Territ Archit (2017) 4:17 Page 9 of 14

that all idiosyncratic architecture is ‘absurd’ (Kohn 2002). to scientific principles” (Dovey 1990, p 4) where knowl-
These allegedly rhetorical statements were intended to edge is derived from phenomenological experience.
activate the populace (King 1993), but instead, serve to Thus, Alexander appears to desire the epistemological
damage Alexander’s credibility (Kohn 2002; Bhatt 2010). strength of the scientific method, but wishes to exclude
Other examples of deliberately provocative statements the dualistic foundation that separates mind and body
[10] include Alexander’s constant attacks on the “caba- (Dovey 1990). Subsequently, it is argued that the majority
listic confraternity of architects [who are] perpetuating a of Alexander’s patterns have never truly been tested [14].
gigantic scam on the almost unsuspecting public” (Alex- This is because patterns early in the language require
ander 1990, p 11). the reorganisation of socio-economic systems and the
Alexander’s statements are not only provocative but connected nature of patterns may mean that individual
also generalising and dogmatic [11], with a proselytising patterns can never be tested in isolation (Protzen 1980;
tone (Broadbent 1980; Protzen 1980; Kohn 2002; Messina Salingaros 2000). Unlike most criticisms, the potential
2003; Walker 2003; Bhatt 2010) and they are pre- un-testability of patterns and their languages has no ante-
sented in texts that physically resemble a bible (Broad- cedent in the conceptualisation of Alexander’s theory.
bent 1980; Dovey 1990). These factors serve to evoke This is a criticism of the pattern language concept, which
an air of authority that discourages dissent and critical would apply to every pattern language, and the difficulty
engagement with Alexander’s theory, while reinforcing that testing a language presents, would scale proportion-
the notion that there is only one ‘right’ way of building. ately with the size of each language.
Alexander’s low opinion of architects, and the barriers The final criticisms [15, 16, 17, 18, 19] of the develop-
he placed in their way, are problematic because he still ment and documentation of Alexander’s theory are issues
envisions them playing an important role as guides to A of faulty reasoning and logic arising primarily from the
Pattern Language’s participatory design processes (Bobic existence of only one ‘right’ way of building [3] (Protzen
1996; Tanner 2000). Ironically, the authoritative tone 1980; Kohn 2002; Bhatt 2010). One logical problem [15]
results in his work resembling self-help books which is found in Alexander’s statement that a pattern “contains
serves to inspire confidence among non-professionals only the essentials which cannot be avoided if you really
and is suggested to partially explain the widespread pop- want to solve the problem” (Alexander et al. 1977, p xiii).
ularity of A Pattern Language (Bhatt 2010). Any design may be summarily dismissed for not really
The next group of development and documentation solving the problem, and the ability to change the defi-
problems [13, 14] focus on Alexander’s use of the term nition of really solving the problem on an ad hoc basis
‘empirical’ (and the evidence supporting his patterns) and provides Alexander with an insurmountable defence of
has antecedents in his ontological [3] and epistemologi- his theory.
cal positions [4]. Alexander’s supporting evidence [13] Alexander’s insistence on returning to pre-industrial
has been criticised for being superficial, pseudo-scien- production modalities [16] comprises three examples of
tific and little more than personal preference (Broadbent flawed reasoning. First, this insistence arises from Alex-
1980; Protzen 1980; Dovey 1990; Salingaros 2000; Kohn ander’s vision of a society of pure freedom and is to be
2002; Saunders 2002a), however much of this criticism achieved through an activated populace reshaping their
appears to arise from Alexander’s ambivalence when environment through bottom-up, grass roots processes.
using the term ‘empirical’ (Dovey 1990). For example, This pre-industrial language demands hand-crafting,
in A Pattern Language Alexander likens his patterns to piecemeal development, the de-commodification of land,
scientific hypotheses and states that the body of each and an absence of external controls. However, Anders
pattern describes “the empirical background of the pat- Duany—a founder of The Congress for the New Urban-
tern, the evidence for its validity” (Alexander et al. 1977, ism, an organisation established to implement ideas
p xi). Alexander also goes on to state that “[t]he empiri- of Alexander and Jane Jacobs—argues that grass roots
cal questions centre on the problem—does [the pattern] process are insufficient to achieve to achieve the scale
occur and is it felt in the way we have described it?—And of change Alexander requires. This scale of change is
the solution—does the arrangement we propose in fact only possible with top down control and the guidance of
resolve the problem” (Alexander et al. 1977, p xv). How- expert leaders, a role that Alexander typically fulfils in
ever, Dovey shows that the term empirical may be used in his own projects (Mehaffy 2004, 2008). Second, the pre-
two different ways. The first describes a scientific process industrial production methods including  a retreat from
“based solely on experiment and observation” (Dovey labour specialisation is unlikely to achieve a level of pro-
1990, p 4), where knowledge is the result of the rigorous ductivity sufficient to support a modern society. Finally,
testing of a hypothesis. Alternatively, the term empirical if Alexander’s patterns are to be successful they must be
also describes “practical experience without reference compatible with contemporary society, which includes
Dawes and Ostwald City Territ Archit (2017) 4:17 Page 10 of 14

the ability to profit monetarily from one’s endeavours, problematic as the second group of criticisms [23, 24]
and Alexander’s insistence on the de-commodification highlight flaws in individual patterns, which can be con-
land runs counter to this requirement (Dovey 1990). ceptually traced back to the testing of the theory [13].
Critics point to Alexander’s insistence on forcing these The final group [25, 26, 27, 28] of criticisms allege that
requirements on a modern society as symptomatic of Alexander’s theory fails to fulfil the objective of creating
an ontology that ignores social, political and economic environments that embody the ‘quality without a name’
realities that establishes a connection between problems and these include Alexander’s own rejection of his sec-
with the development and conceptualisation of the the- ond theory of architecture.
ory (Montgomery 1970; Dovey 1990; Salingaros 2000; Alexander’s patterns serve as neatly packaged remind-
Elsheshtawy 2001; Saunders 2002a). Meanwhile flawed ers of design wisdom that restrict architects and lay
reasoning also produces patterns that are incompatible people to providing only those solutions that satisfy emo-
with contemporary society and establishes a connection tional and physical needs, while producing cohesive and
to problems with the implementation of the language. contiguous environments (Davis 1983; Salingaros 2000;
In another example of flawed reasoning, Alexander’s Saunders 2002a; Kalb 2014). However, the constraining
theory espouses pure freedom—no rules, no morals, no nature of Alexander’s patterns led scholars to criticise the
top-down control—yet proposes achieving this through theory for limiting the designer’s creativity [20] and pre-
the imposition of his own set of inviolable rules [17], venting them from pursuing agendas that differ from his
because he doesn’t trust the activated populace to avoid (Davis 1983; Dovey 1990; Messina 2003). This complaint
mistakes and missed opportunities (Saunders 2002a; is certainly valid, insofar as Alexander’s intention is to
Walker 2003; Kalb 2014). The “contradiction that free- restrict the designer’s capacity to produce radical works,
dom is to be achieved through obedience to his rules in order to ensure the creation of environments that cap-
pervades Alexander’s work” (Saunders 2002a, p 94). In ture the quality without a name. Creativity in Alexan-
effect, Alexander’s proposal is to replace the theory and der’s theory comes from adapting patterns to serve local
practice of modernism (which he rejects as totalitarian conditions, rather than developing new solutions, and
and controlling) with an alternative, yet equally tyranni- this allows each pattern to generate an infinite number
cal romanticism (Protzen 1980; Saunders 2002a). of unique designs (Alexander et  al. 1967, 1977; Salinga-
Achieving freedom by imposing rules is not the only ros 2000). However, “[b]y staying within the pattern lan-
misalignment between the goals and methods of Alex- guage you will never be able to produce a design that is
ander’s theory. Alexander’s second theory is intended radically different from the design of any other pattern
to restore the intuitively developed and innately satisfy- language user, no matter what the personal desires or
ing forms of traditional architecture. However, Alexan- what the local conditions are” (Protzen 1980, p 292). This
der’s careful analysis and explanation of how traditional criticism of the raison d’être of Alexander’s second theory
environments arise is insufficient to restore those quali- echoes the sentiments of many architects who rejected
ties through his own, highly systemised design process the theory (Dovey 1990; Salingaros 2000; Messina 2003;
[18]. Thus, Alexander’s goal of restoring the benefits of Bhatt 2010).
traditional procurement can only be achieved through The restrictive nature of Alexander’s patterns are also
a return to traditional procurement models (Kalb 2014). problematic for their potential to override the actual
One final piece of contradictory logic is Alexander’s claim needs and aesthetic preferences of language users [21].
that people prefer his architecture due to the feelings it Alexander’s affordable housing project in Mexicali
evokes, while also arguing that the majority of people required 2  weeks of experimentation before he decided
have compromised [19] taste, due to years of modernist on the colour to paint the cornice, despite clients and staff
brainwashing (Bornstein 2005/2006). members who believed the design should be all white, or
simply didn’t understand the necessity of ensuring the
Implementation and outcome criticisms colour was ‘just right’ [22]. As a further example, Alex-
The final criticisms of Alexander’s theory focus on its ander’s inclusion of the romanticised sleeping arrange-
implementation and outcomes, and have antecedents in ments of pattern 188 ‘Bed Alcoves’ in his social housing
both its development and documentation and its concep- experiment in Lima produced “stuffy, claustrophobic
tualisation (Table  3). These criticisms can be organised little cells” (Broadbent 1980, p 235) where the residents
into three broad groupings. The first group of imple- prefer the bedrooms of traditional shanties which provide
mentation problems [20, 21, 22] result from Alexander’s ample ventilation. This pattern is both contrary to user
singular vision of the one ‘right’ way of building [3] and preferences and unfit for its purpose. In this sense Alex-
allege that his patterns are too controlling and inflex- ander “occasionally exhibits a fetish for form that would
ible (Fig. 3). This controlling nature becomes particularly rival the most fastidious of the high style architects…
Dawes and Ostwald City Territ Archit (2017) 4:17 Page 11 of 14

Table 3  Criticisms of Alexander’s second theory of architecture: implementation and outcomes

[#] Issue A# Criticism S# Source

20 Restricting 3 Patterns disallow radical solutions – (Broadbent 1980; Protzen 1980; Davis 1983; Dovey 1990;
Salingaros 2000; Kohn 2002; Saunders 2002a; Messina
2003; Mehaffy 2007; Bhatt 2010; Montgomery 1970)
21 Restricting 3, 15 The ‘correct’ use of patterns can overrule user preferences – (Dovey 1990; Saunders 2003)
22 Restricting 3 Alexander insists on every detail being ‘correct’ 26 (Dovey 1990)
23 Flawed 13, 16 Some patterns prescribe flawed solutions – (Broadbent 1980; Gelernter 2000; Salingaros 2000)
24 Flawed 13 Some patterns are contradictory and incompatible – (Protzen 1980; Saunders 2002a)
25 Unsuccessful 9, 13 Patterns are not required to create beautiful places and – (Broadbent 1980; Protzen 1980; Kohn 2002; Walker 2003;
ugly places can be created using patterns Seamon 2006; Kalb 2014)
26 Unsuccessful 22 Patterns produce awkward and poorly constructed – (Kohn 2002; Seamon 2006)
buildings
27 Unsuccessful 9, 13 A Pattern Language lacks a focus on geometry – (Pontikis 2010) Alexander in (Grabow 1983)
28 Unsuccessful – Alexander’s pattern language is cumbersome to use – (Salingaros 2000)
[#], criticism identifier; #A, antecedent criticism; #S, subsequent criticism

Fig. 3  Criticism connections and groupings of Alexander’s second theory of architecture: Implementation and outcomes. Numbers correspond to
criticism numbers in text and tables, dotted lines indicate groups and sub-groups of criticisms, arrows point from antecedent criticisms to second-
ary criticisms or groups of criticisms

[and that] Alexander’s insistence in getting every detail developmental problems can be traced back to the con-
‘right’ serves to undercut the larger paradigmatic change ceptualisation of the theory [3] as the one ‘right’ way of
by leaving the dweller dependent on nothing more than building.
a different kind of aesthetic expert” (Dovey 1990, p 7). The second group of problems [23, 24] focus on the
Thus, problems with the implementation of Alexander’s flaws and contradictions in individual patterns result-
theory [20, 21, 22] can be traced back to problems with ing from ideologically driven testing [13] and which
theory development [15], and both implementation and become particularly problematic when patterns override
Dawes and Ostwald City Territ Archit (2017) 4:17 Page 12 of 14

user preferences. The flaws in patterns [23] are partially and their relationships mapped to reveal that many issues
the result of some patterns aging poorly while others affecting the development and implementation of the
were bad from their inception and include those that theory can be connected to Alexander’s idiosyncratic
are incompatible with modern society [16] (Broadbent ontological and epistemological positions. For instance,
1980; Gelernter 2000; Saunders 2002a). The Peruvian 12 criticisms [10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22]
‘bed alcoves’ mentioned above provide an example of a (43%) are directly connected to high level ontological
pattern that was flawed in its application. Further exam- problems [1, 2, 3] and a further 5 criticisms [23, 24, 25,
ples of flawed patterns include those detailing economic 26, 27] (18%) are directly connected to these secondary
and construction requirements which are not compatible problems. Furthermore, 10 criticisms [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
with modern society (Dovey 1990; Salingaros 2000) and 12, 13, 18] (36%) are directly connected to Alexander’s
those related to vehicular traffic. These vehicular patterns epistemology [4] and a further 4 criticisms [23, 24, 25,
may have been appropriate at the time Alexander’s the- 27] (14%) are directly connected to these secondary criti-
ory was published, but are no longer capable of serving cisms. Surprisingly, only 2 criticisms [14, 28] (7%) relate
the greater densities of vehicular traffic of today’s society directly to the pattern language concept rather than
(Gelernter 2000). In addition to containing flawed con- criticisms of Alexander’s ontological and epistemologi-
tent, a further problem with implementing Alexander’s cal positions, and these criticisms are amongst the more
theory is that some patterns appear to directly contra- speculative.
dict other patterns [24] despite the connections indicat- As this mapping of criticisms shows, many perceived
ing that those patterns should synthesise into a more problems with Alexander’s theory are directly or indi-
complete whole (Protzen 1980; Saunders 2002a). This rectly connected to high level conceptual issues. The the-
situation presents a challenge for designers as Alexan- matic grouping of these issues indicates that Alexander’s
der provides no guidance for determining which pattern theory: (i) embraces an ontology that confuses objective
should take precedence. A looser interpretation of con- and subjective phenomena, rejects pluralistic values and
tradictory patterns might allow both be combined into a alternate experiences, ignores political and social reali-
single design, however this also risks misinterpreting the ties, and accepts only one ‘right’ way of building. This
essence of each pattern and producing a flawed outcome. theory also (ii) depends on an idiosyncratic definition
The final group of four criticisms [25, 26, 27, 28] state of ‘science’ that relies on ambiguous interpretations of
that Alexander’s theory fails to achieve the objective of what constitutes empirical research and eschews the sci-
creating beautiful places. These criticisms include the entific practices of rigorous testing and documentation.
observation that it is possible to create beautiful, lively The development of Alexander’s theory is criticised for:
places without using any of Alexander’s patterns [25] (i) failing to provide explicit definitions of terms, not
and equally possible to create ugly and dead places using engaging with scholarly literature, or providing tradi-
them (Broadbent 1980; Protzen 1980; Walker 2003; Kalb tional empirical validation for claims, and thereby failing
2014; Kohn 2002). Several real and simulated projects led to meet expected standards of scholarly writing. It also
by Alexander, and using his patterns, either fail to live up (ii) fails to engage in rigorous testing of patterns, and (iii)
to his expectations (Alexander et al. 1978; Seamon 2006), includes significant examples of flawed reasoning and
or are so poorly constructed and awkward in appearance logical problems. The implementation of Alexander’s the-
[26] that they could not be regarded as beautiful under ory is also criticised for: (i) being overly controlling and
any traditionally derived definition (Kohn 2002; Seamon restrictive, (ii) including flawed patterns and recommen-
2006). As previously noted, Alexander ultimately rejected dations for design, and ultimately, (iii) failing to accom-
his second theory of architecture citing a lack of focus plish the intended goal of creating beautiful and whole
on geometrical considerations [27] which diminished its designs.
ability to generate beautiful places (Grabow 1983; Pon- Mapping criticisms into thematic groups reveals famil-
tikis 2010). The final criticism that Alexander’s pattern iar issues for those experienced with Alexander’s theory,
language is cumbersome to use [28] echoes the view that however this grouping of criticisms has not previously
patterns cannot be empirically tested, in that both are been so explicitly identified. These considerations are
criticisms of the pattern language concept and lack pre- often overlooked by many readers of Alexander’s theory
cursors in Alexander’s conceptualisation of the theory. who merely see a recipe book, of conveniently formatted,
seemingly well-intentioned, humanist solutions to the
Conclusion challenges of contemporary design. Indeed, its popularity
The preceding sections illustrate how 28 criticisms of amongst owner-builders and home designers may largely
Alexander’s second theory of architecture can be cat- reside in the fact that much of a pattern language remains
egorised hierarchically, formed into thematic groups, useful, even if the reader remains unaware of these
Dawes and Ostwald City Territ Archit (2017) 4:17 Page 13 of 14

criticisms. However, by explicitly mapping and group- Publisher’s Note

ing these criticisms into common themes, novice read- Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub-
lished maps and institutional affiliations.
ers may develop a deeper understanding of the theory’s
weaknesses. Meanwhile, veteran users of the language Received: 3 September 2017 Accepted: 5 December 2017
may benefit from a deeper understanding of how prob-
lems encountered when attempting to design with the
language are connected to issues with the development
and conceptualisation of the theory. References
The identification and organisation of these criti- Adams D, Tiesdall S (2007) Introduction to the special issue: the vital city. Town
cisms suggests three possible directions for the future Plan Rev 78(6):671–679
Alexander C (1964) Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard University Press,
of pattern languages. The first is to consider A Pat- Cambridge
tern Language as a historical artefact worthy of further Alexander C (1966) From a set of forces to a form. In: Kepes G (ed) The man
exploration. The second investigates the concept of pat- made object. Studio Vista, London, pp 96–107
Alexander C (1979) The timeless way of building. Oxford University Press, New
tern languages including whether or not they can be York
rigorously tested and whether they are practical design Alexander C (1990) Letter to the editor. Progres Archit 77(April):11
methodologies, the third is to develop new pattern lan- Alexander C (1993) A foreshadowing of 21st century art. Oxford University
Press, New York
guages without the restrictions of Alexander’s ontologi- Alexander C (1996) Patterns in architecture. In: Anderson L, Copelin J (eds)
cal and epistemological positions. This final avenue for OOPSLA—conference on object oriented programming systems lan-
research has the potential to enable a paradigm shift in guages and applications. Association for Computing Machinery, San Jose
Alexander C (2002a) The nature of order: Christopher Alexander responds to
architectural theory, but only if patterns can be rigor- William Saunders’s review of his latest book. http://www.architectural-
ously tested. Ultimately, the elusive nature of the ‘quality record.com/articles/11450-the-nature-of-order?page=1. Edited version
without a name’ may prevent the rigorous testing of pat- published in 2002 Architectural Record 190(12): 57. Accessed 14 June
2017
terns, however, even in this eventuality patterns remain Alexander C (2002b) The nature of order: an essay on the art of building and
powerful phenomenological design tools “For the fact is the nature of the universe. Vol I, The phenomenon of life. Centre for
most architects, most of the time, have worked accord- Environmental Structure, Berkley
Alexander C (2002c) The nature of order: an essay on the art of building and
ing to patterns” (Broadbent 1980, p 252). While these the nature of the universe. Vol II, The process of creating life. Centre for
patterns largely remain informal, Alexander’s second Environmental Structure, Berkley
theory of architecture offers the potential to formal- Alexander C (2004) The nature of order: an essay on the art of building and the
nature of the universe. Vol IV, The luminous ground. Centre for Environ-
ise complex phenomena into an easily digestible format mental Structure, Berkley
which is accessible to non-professionals. Formalising pat- Alexander C (2005) The nature of order: an essay on the art of building and
terns in this way may facilitate improved communication the nature of the universe. Vol III, A vision of a living world. Centre for
Environmental Structure, Berkley
between architects and clients by providing each party Alexander C, Eisenman P (1982) Contrasting concepts of harmony in architec-
with a deeper means of understanding the values and ture. In: Katarxis No 3, 2004
vision of the other. Alexander C, Poyner B (1967) The atoms of environmental structure. Center for
Planning and Development Research, Berkeley
Authors’ contributions Alexander C, Wilson CSJ, March L, Norberg-Schultz C, Brawne M (1967) Design
MJD: primary author. MJO: research supervisor. Both authors read and innovation: discussion. Progres Archit 48(November):126–131
approved the final manuscript. Alexander C, Silverstien M, Angel S, Ishikawa S, Abrams D (1975) The Oregon
experiment. Oxford University Press, New York
Alexander C, Ishikawa S, Silverstienm M (1977) A pattern language: towns,
Acknowledgements buildings, construction. Oxford University Press, New York
This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Alexander C, Nies H, Anninou A, King I (1978) A new theory of urban design.
Program Scholarship. Oxford University Press, New York
Bhatt R (2010) Christopher Alexander’s pattern language: an alternative explo-
Competing interests ration of space-making practices. J Archit 15(6):711–729
The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Bobic M (1996) A timeless pattern language: on the translation of a pattern
language. Archis 7:54–60
Availability of data and materials Bornstein E (2005/2006) An interview with Christopher Alexander. The Struc-
Not applicable. turist 2005/2006 (45/46): 4–21
Broadbent G (1980) Pattern language. Des Stud 1(4):252–253
Consent for publication Clavan B (1979) Christopher Alexander and the pattern language. Archit Urban
Both authors approve this manuscript for publication. 12(111):78–98
Davis H (1983) Individual houses in groups: the pattern language in a teaching
Ethics approval and consent to participate studio. J Archit Educ 36(3):14–19
Not applicable. Dovey K (1990) The pattern language and its enemies. Des Stud 11(1):3–9
Elsheshtawy Y (2001) Searching for theory in Christopher Alexander’s intel-
Funding lectual roots. Archit Sci Rev 44(4):395–403
This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Gelernter M (1983) Christopher Alexander and the pattern language. Archit J
Program Scholarship. 1:17–21
Gelernter M (2000) Sun-filled window seats. Archit Res Q 4(2):190–192
Dawes and Ostwald City Territ Archit (2017) 4:17 Page 14 of 14

Grabow S (1983) Christopher Alexander: the search for a new paradigm in Pontikis K (2010) Teaching Christopher Alexander’s theoretical framework in a
architecutre. Oriel Press, Stocksfield capstone interior design studio. Des Princ Pract 4(3):407–425
Hermann C (2004) Architecture and programming: generative design. In: Protzen JP (1980) The poverty of the pattern language. Des Stud 1(5):291–295
Williams K, Cepeda FD (eds) Nexus V: architecture and mathematics. Kim Rapoport A (1969) House form and culture. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey
Williams Books, Florence, pp 105–116 Rapoport A (1982) The meaning of the built environment: a nonverbal com-
Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities. Random House, munication approach. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills
New York Rudofsky B (1964) Architecture without architects: a short introduction to non-
Kalb J (2014) Life in design: Christopher Alexander and the nature of order. Int pedigreed architecture. Mesuem of Modern Art, New York
J Archit Res 8(2):94–98 Salingaros NA (2000) The structure of pattern languages. Archit Res Q
Kaplan S, Dale FD, Kaplan R (1987) Patterns as hypotheses: an empirical test. In: 4(2):149–161
Harvey J, Henning D (eds) Public environments. EDRA, Washington D.C., Saunders W (2002a) Commentary: ever more popular, ever more dogmatic:
pp 188–193 The sad sequel to Christopher Alexander’s work. Archit Rec 190(5):93–96
King IF (1993) Christopher Alexander and contemporary architecuture. Archit Saunders W (2002b) A pattern language by Christopher Alexander. Harvard
Urban, Tokyo Design Magazine Winter/Spring, 16: 74–78
Kohn W (2002) The lost prophet of architecture. Wilson Quarterly Summer, p Saunders W (2003) The nature of order II: William Saunders responds to
26–34 Christopher Alexander’s letter. http://www.architecturalrecord.com/
Lang J (1994) Urban design the American experience. Wiley, New York articles/12371-the-nature-of-order-ii?. Accessed 14 June 2017
Lea D (1994) Christopher Alexander: an introduction for object-oriented Seamon D (2006) Clarifying and evaluating Alexander’s theory of wholeness
designers. Softw Eng Notes 19(1):39–46 by interpreting his approach as a tetrad of activity. In: Annual meetings of
Lynch K (1960) The image of the city. MIT Press, Cambridge the International Association for Environmental Philosophy, Philadelphia,
Mehaffy MW (2004) A conversation with Andrés Duany. Katarxis No 3. http:// PA, October, 2006
www.katarxis3.com/Duany.htm Silva EM, Paraizo C (2008) Urban projects database based on Alexander’s pat-
Mehaffy MW (2007) Notes on the genesis of wholes: Christopher Alexander tern language: the case of Favela-Bairro. Int J Archit Comput 6(3):261–277
and his continuing influence. Urban Des Int 12(1):41–49 Tanner K (2000) The influence of school architecture on academic achieve-
Mehaffy MW (2008) Generative methods in urban design: a progress assess- ment. J Educ Administration 38(4):309–330
ment. J Urban 1(1):57–75 Veloso PLA (2014) Cybernetic diagrams: design strategies for an open game.
Messina J (2003) Architecture: some musings on the state of the art. J South- Int J Archit Comput 12(4):379–397
west 45(1/2):1–7 Walker B (2003) Another kind of science: Christopher Alexander on democratic
Montgomery R (1970) Pattern language. Archit Forum 132(1):52–59 theory and the built environment. Can J Political Sci 36(5):1053–1072
Park Y (2015) The network of patterns: creating a design guide using
Christopher Alexander’s pattern language. Environ Plan B Plan Des
42(4):593–614