Project MUSE – A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction by Christopher Alexander (review)

In lieu of

an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

80 Books The Evolution of Designs: Biological Analogy in Architecture and the Applied Arts. Philip Steadman. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1979.276 pp., ilIus. £9.50. Reviewed by N. O. A. Bullock* From Semper’s enthusiasm with Cuvier’s collection laid out at the Jardin des PIantes to Le Corbusier’s ecstatic cry, ‘Biology, the great new word in architecture and planning’, designers have been fascinated by the analogy that has been held to exist between biology and design in the applied arts and in architecture . This book provides an elegant discussion of this theme. Starting with the simple classificatory analogies that emphasize the parallels between the work of Goethe on the Urpflanze and the attempts by Durand in his Parallele to classify the range of possible buildings, Steadman proceeds from a discussion of Cuvier and Viollet-le-Duc, to Darwin and Semper and on to Ozenfant and Le Corbusier and their use of biological analogy in the presentation of the case for a ‘purist’ aesthetic. The historical account of the use of biological analogy ends in the late 1960s with an illuminating critique of Alexander’s Notes on the Synthesis of Form that emphasises his debt to the essentially biological approach of W. Ross Ashby’s study of the brain and of behaviour and the inherent limitations of Alexander’s proposal for producing designs from this starting point. The account offered by Steadman is neither simply descriptive nor merely uncritical. A number of uses of biological analogy are challenged in two sections that explore the ‘fallacies’ (in Goeffrey Scott’s terms) of functional and historical determinism that have arisen from a simplistic reliance on analogy between biology and design. Nor is the study simply an historical treatment of the theme; indeed for Steadman one of the virtues of the enquiry is to force a wider understanding of the realm of design and to serve as a guide in charting future architectural and design theory. The book is clearly, occasionally humorously, written. But beyond writing an enjoyable book, Steadman makes three important contributions. First, he assembles a great deal of information that adds to the understanding of 19th-and 20thcentury theoretical views of architecture. To those familiar with the architectural theorists of the 19th century, major figures, such as Viollet-le-Duc, may, it is true, be presented in unfamiliar guise, although with the emphasis on the theme of biological analogy this partial treatment is unavoidable. But, albeit highly selective, the information is of value: Where better to look for a discussion of Greenough’s memorable but misleading dictum ‘Form follows function’? Second, by examining the development of the use of biological analogy Steadman is able to approach themes like ‘functionalism’ more convincingly than heretofore. Functionalism urged by early apologists for the ‘Modern Movement’ as one of the keys to the understanding of the new approach to design has been inadequately treated in the critical literature. So far it has been a question of choosing between the watery generalities of De Zurko’s Origins of Functionalist Theory or the narrow view of the individual polemical statement most abrasively characterised by the utterances of Hannes Meyer. With the broader theoretical and historical view of the development of design, a much larger understanding of these terms is possible. Finally, and most important, is the view of architectural enquiry that emerges from the book. In the introduction Steadman argues for a science of architecture. This is not a call for a return to the narrow optimism of the late 1960s in ‘design methods’; indeed the fallacy of these methods is clearly exposed. This architectural science would be one of those ‘sciences of the artificial’ to which Herbert Simon refers and would offer the possibility of applying rational enquiry not to the process of design but to the variety of objects that are designed. As early as 1911 Lethaby was calling for a start to this and for a start to a comprehensive ‘morphology of the art by some architectural Linnaeus or Darwin’. I believe this book will be recognized as an important advance towards this goal. “King’s College, School of Architecture, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1ST, England. A Pattern Language: Towns…