Coevolving Innovations - Systems Generating Systems - Architectural Design Theory by Christopher Alexander (1968)

10/6/2014 Coevolving Innovations | Systems generating systems architectural design theory by Christopher Alexander (1968)
http://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/systems-generating-systems-architectural-design-theory-by-christopher-alexander-1968/ 1/11
coevolving.com
Systems generating systems architectural design theory by
Christopher Alexander (1968)
The systems thinking roots from architect Christopher Alexander arent completely obvious in his work on
pattern language . A republished version of an 1968 article resurfaces some clarification on a perspective on
systems thinking originating from practices in architecture. This article introduced ways in which systems
thinking could be most directly applied to built environments . The cross-appropriation of pattern languages
across a variety of domain types object-oriented programmers were the earliest motivating adopters
could be enlightened by revisiting the foundations. Alexander concisely presented 4 points, and then
provided detailed reasoning for each:
1 . There are two ideas hidden in the word system: the idea of a system as a whole and the idea of
a generating system.
2 . A system as a whole is not an object but a way of looking at an object. It focuses on some holistic
property which can only be understood as a product of interaction among parts.
3 . A generating system is not a view of a single thing. It is a kit of parts, with rules about the way
these parts may be combined.
4 . Almost every system as a whole is generated by a generating system. If we wish to make things
which function as wholes we shall have to invent generating systems to create them. [Alexander
2011, p. 59; Alexander 1968, p. 605]
In a properly functioning building, the building and the people in it together form a whole: a social,
human whole. The building systems which have so far been created do not in this sense generate
wholes at all. [Alexander 2011, p. 58; Alexander 1968, p. 605]
Lets leave analytical explications of the original 1968 text as secondary, to first appreciate the idea of
systems generating systems through sensemaking done some decades after 1968, and in the broader
context of Alexanders other writings and interviews.
Molly Wright Steenson , as part of her 2014 dissertation , has a 66-page digest of Alexanders work between
1962 and 1968. Her deep reading was reflected in a 2009 recorded presentation on Loving and Hating
Christopher Alexander . Generally speaking, interaction designers love Christopher Alexanders approach,
while architects hate Christopher Alexanders approach.
SVA Dot Dot Dot Lectures: Molly Wright Steenson from MFA Interaction Design .
Amongst the lovers and haters of Christopher Alexander is a predisposition towards interaction compatible
with systems thinking. For built environments, architecture can be described through a language of
patterns, where those patterns may or may not be generative. In her 2014 dissertation , Steenson fleshes out
Alexanders 1968 Systems Generating Systems with the broader context of the 1979 The Timeless Way of
Building, and 1983 publication by Stephen Grabow of interviews with Alexander.
Generating Systems
Alexander describes pattern languages as generative, referring to the quality of multiplicity, of a
system that operates both as a whole and as a set of rules. A system, like a language, works on
multiple levels. The system presents itself on the surface, he writes, when we are confronted with an
object which displays some kind of behaviour which can only be understood as a product of
interaction among parts within the object. We call this kind of behaviour, holistic behaviour.
262
It
also incorporates the rule set for the manipulation of the elements that it composes. This dualistic
system is analogous to the functions of the pattern language. Just as a generating system is a kit of
parts, Each pattern is a rule which describes what you have to do to generate the entity which it
defines.
263
[Steenson 2014, pp. 90-91]
262
Christopher Alexander, Systems Generating Systems, AD 38(1968): 606.
263
Alexander, The Timeless Way of Building, 182.
[....]
Alexander intends to literally mesh genetics and linguistics and apply them to architecture with his
notion of generativity. He was interested in the idea that a rule set the syntax of a language can
generate a building not as a mechanical technique (as might perhaps be naively understood in the
automobile industry) but as a structural principle of natural creation as it is understood in modern
science, writes Alexanders biographer Stephen Grabow.
266
The idea that a set of known rules could
actually generate a building is as disturbing as the idea that a human being is generated by a few
genetic rules operating on chromosomes or that a poem is generated by a few grammatical rules
operating on language. And yet that is precisely what Alexander is claiming.
267
Alexander refers to
Noam Chomskys generative grammar in an interview in his biography, stating that it is his intention
to apply such a grammar to architecture. The structure of the underlying languageis doing most of
the hard work. The pattern language provides the syntax, where the patterns when combined and
executed by the user reflect the languages semantics. Alexander seems to channel Chomskys notion
of deep and surface structures: while a pattern might have many potential instantiations on its
surface, its sum of underlying possibilities are what make it generative. In essence, if a generative
grammar can produce sentences regardless of the language, if genetic code can produce a bird, then
a generative system can produce architecture. Alexander says, Im making the statement that I can
actually set up those rules so that if you follow a sequence of them in the order prescribed you will
have a building.
268
The user of the language makes choices about what and how to use the language,
based on context: It is the structure that makes this possible.
269
Indeed, genetics, languages, and
architecture are inextricable in Alexanders view. Designing buildings or a town is fundamentally a
genetic process.
270
Moreover, he writes, patterns always come from languages; these languages
are analogous to the genetic code that shapes a living being.
271
[Steenson 2014, pp. 91-92]
266
Stephen Grabow, Christopher Alexander: The Search for a New Paradigm in Architecture
(Boston: Oriel Press, 1983), 9.
267
Ibid.
268
Ibid., 48.
269
Ibid., 49.
270
271
Ibid., 199.
From a systems perspective, just having a collection of patterns isnt sufficient. A generative pattern
language has to meet a higher standard, in three ways.
There are three elements of pattern languages that make them generative. First, pattern languages
contain an inherent rule set that determines their logic. Alexander writes, Thus, as in the case of
natural languages, the pattern language is generative. It not only tells us the rules of arrangement, but
shows us how to construct arrangements as many as we want which satisfy the rules.
272
In an
interview with his biographer, Alexander noted, We give names to things but we dont give many
names to relationships.
273
The pattern language was an attempt to address these relationships. So
it not only defines the sentences which make sense in a given situation; it also gives us the apparatus
we need to create these sentences. It is, in other words, a generative system, which allows us to
generate sentences that are appropriate to any given situation.
274
Following the operations in order,
suggested by the system, creates a generative, coherent whole out of the parts the system is
organizing. [Steenson 2014, pp. 92-93]
272
Ibid., 186.
273
Grabow, Christopher Alexander, 46.
274
Second, pattern languages and other generating systems produce effects greater than the sum of their
parts. Alexander writes in Timeless Way, This quality in buildings and in towns cannot be made, but
only generated, indirectly, by the ordinary actions of the people, just as a flower cannot be made, but
only generated from the seed.
275
These systems may come to necessitate their own propagation, he
suggests, when we use them. He writes, The patterns in the world merely exist. But the same patterns
in our minds are dynamic. They have force. They are generative. They tell us what to do; they tell us
how we shall, or may, generate them; and they tell us too, that under certain circumstances, we must
create them.
276
[Steenson 2014, p. 93]
275
Ibid., xi.
276
Third, in addition to their self-perpetuating properties, generating systems contain the mechanism for
their own propagation. The pattern language, then, like a seed, is the genetic system which gives our
millions of small acts the power to form a whole.
277
A language, then, can foster a process of
unfolding, like the evolution of an embryo, in which the whole precedes the parts, and actually gives
birth to them, by splitting.
278
At the same time, the language grows through accretion. Next, several
acts of building, each one done to repair and magnify the product of the previous acts, will slowly
generate a larger and more complex whole than any single act can generate, he writes.
279
Alexander
sees it as a genetic allegory: in his description of the timeless way of building, an unnamable quality
that his systems are intended to elicit, he writes, In this sense, then, we have found an example of the
kind of code which does, at certain times play just the role in buildings and in towns that the genetic
code plays in a living organism.
280
[Steenson 2014, pp. 93-94]
277
Ibid., xiii.
278
Ibid.
279
Ibid., xiv.
280
Grabow, Christopher Alexander, 49. Italics Grabows
A pattern language can be more than grammar. As a generative language about design, it can approach the
sophistication of a semantic network.
Despite the fact that Alexander employs the notion of generative grammar, he argues that Chomskys
generative grammars are too basic and that pattern languages surpass them because of their
engagement with semantic networks. Alexander says in an interview with Stephen Grabow,
Chomskys work on generative grammar will soon be considered very limited It does not
deal with the interesting structure of language because the real structure of language lies in
the relationships between words the semantic connections. The semantic network which
connects the word fire with burn, red, and passion is the real stuff of language.
Chomsky makes no attempt to deal with that and therefore, in a few years, his work will be
considered primitive.
281
[Steenson 2014, pp. 94]
281
Grabow, Christopher Alexander, 49. Italics Grabows.
The real stuff that interested Alexander had to do with the architectural equivalent of the semantic
networks: the interrelations of the words, their meanings and their evocations with each other. He
continues,
In that sense, pattern languages are not like generative grammars. What they are like is the
semantic structure, the really interesting part of language and which only a few people have
begun to study. The structure which connects words togetheris much more like the structure
which connects patterns together in a pattern language. So pattern languages are not so
much analogous to generative grammars as they are to the real heart structure of language
which has hardly been described yet.
282
This places Alexander in a strange situation. On one hand, the notion of generativity provides the
pattern language with the means of its propagation. The formatting and compression of the patterns
and the sequencing provided by the language provides the framework for using the patterns as a
program to create form. But he aims for semantics, allegory, and poetics, as well as the aspects of
language that generate feelings, emotions, a sense of order all of which extend beyond the
structural, topological and syntactic aspects of his program. These semantic conceptions equate the
patterns with timeless cycles of life, with a program for the built environment, for the order of
existence. [Steenson 2014, pp. 94-95]
282
While it is true that Chomskys interest in generative grammar shifted over the decades,
eventually moving toward the Minimalist Program in the early 1990s, Alexander would also
step away from the notion of a semantic network and more toward the pursuit of the
geometrics of order. Ibid.
Thus, from a perspective of 2014, the idea of systems generating systems may have first emerged in 1968, but
shows up in the 1973 publication of The Timeless Way of Building. The basic systems thinking foundations
help in understanding the 2003-2004 four volumes of The Nature of Order but well leave that for another
discussion.
Turning from a retrospective view to an earlier point in Alexanders development, Steenson traces back to
the writings of Ross Ashby through to the 1964 publishing of Notes on the Synthesis of Form.
In order to develop a model for stability in design problems, Alexander looked to cybernetics for
models of homeostasis and ultrastability. Such systems could stabilize themselves regardless of what
disturbed them, including variables that werent considered when the system was designed.
121

Alexander was particularly inspired by W. Ross Ashbys 1952 book, Design for a Brain, which he cites
numerous times in Notes, especially in Chapter 3, The Source of Good Fit. [Steenson 2014, p. 46]
121
ultrastable, adj. OED Online. September 2013. Oxford University Press, accessed
November 12, 2013, http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/208719 . Ultrastability places two sets of
environmental and reactive variables in a primary feedback loop. A slower, second feedback
affects the reactive variables by acting on the step-mechanisms and setting parameters for the
environmental variables. Ashby, Design for a Brain: The Origin of Adaptive Behavior, 98.
In a 2011 edited volume, Sean Ahlquist and Achim Mengers describe how the foundations of General
Systems Theory by Ludwig von Bertalanffy were adapted to design thinking and architectural theory by
Christopher Alexander..
Systems Thinking
[....] In the mid-20th century, Ludwig von Bertalanffy introduced general system theory as a response
to the long evolution of the conception of the whole of functioning systems. His theory is based on a
fundamental critique on classic physics and its deductive methods and focus on isolated phenomena.
Bertalanffy considered such methods as unsuitable for biology, reasoning that nothing in nature exists
in isolation or simple dependencies, but rather needs to be understood as complex systems of
interactions and reciprocities. [Ahlquist and Mengers 2011, pp. 13]
[....] General system theory was formulated as a universal scientific discipline to decipher the laws
which rule the definition of organised wholes. Folded into architecture, as exemplified by
Christopher Alexanders writings on design process and physical organisations, form and functionality
in the 1960s, the theory implied profound changes to design thinking. Contrary to established design
approaches, Alexander argued that an overall design problem cannot be divided into sub-problems,
and consequently, that it is impossible to arrive at a novel design solution as a summary process of
solving individual problems one after the other.
Alexander describes a system as that which focuses on an overall behaviour accomplished through the
interaction among parts. The use of the words among parts is critical in this definition as it states
that the knowledge of the components has to be complemented with the knowledge of how the
components interact, whether it be in competition or in contiguity. As defined initially by Aristotle
and later expanded upon by Bertalanffy, systems do not function simply as the summation of the
whole. The holistic nature cannot be seen in the individual part, nor can it be seen with the addition of
its parts. The system behaviour emerges only in the dynamics of the interactions of the parts. This is
not a cumulative linear effect but rather a cyclical causal effect in which the complexity of the level
and amount of interaction cannot be directly deciphered.
The introduction of system theory in architecture and the consequential focus on systems thinking in
design applied a twofold shift. First, the shift signified a dismissal of the view of architecture as
comprised of entities in static isolation for one which defines form as the culmination of systems
which interact with its context in matter, physicality and personal engagement. Second, this shift in
architectural thinking introduced fundamental concepts for how the computation of such
interrelational, complex behaviour-based systems could be achieved. [Ahlquist and Mengers 2011, p.
15]
This brings us to a 2011 perspective by Ahlquist and Mengers on the republication of the 1968 article by
Alexander. An introductory preface is provided.
In his earlier writings, Christopher Alexander established the notion of the unselfconscious process.
Initially, this refers to the notion of process, in a social context, as being interrelational by which
culture, building and environment are concurrently formed. In this selected text, published in an issue
of Architectural Design (1968), it Is extended into the notion of how architectural problems may be
solved through an analogous process where design forms through the iterative readings and responses
to interrelational conditions, with the intention of producing environments synchronous with their
cultural settings. Inherent in this position regarding process and form is the substantial step that
Alexander makes to transfer the conception of form as an observed object to one as an externalised
operating system. In this article, he argues how such a system is born, itself, of a generative system,
establishing the duality between the object as a computing agent and the method as a computational
process. Alexander lays out particular aspects of such a process, describing three conditions: the
global behaviour, the components that. form such behaviour and the types of local relationships
among those components. While these three aspects characterise a system, this does not extensively
describe the process by which a system can be achieved. Alexander explains, through defining four
characteristics of a system, the distinction between the behaviour, as a collection of actions, and the
system which generates that behaviour, as a series of interactions, and at what level of abstraction
such complexity can be understood. [Ahlquist and Mengers 2011, p. 58]
Lets view selected passages from the full 1968 article.
1. There are two ideas hidden in the word system: the idea of a system as a whole and the
idea of a generating system.
For systems thinkers, emergence is a property of a whole that is not a property in its parts. The classical
example is that wetness is a property of water, and not a property of the hydrogen and oxygen that make up
water. Alexander doesnt use the word emergence, but does capture that idea in the generating system.
The word system, like any technical word borrowed from common use, has many meanings and is
imprecise. This lack of precision in a technical word might seem dangerous at rst; in fact it is often
helpful. It allows new ideas to flourish while still vague, it allows connections between these ideas to
be explored, and it allows the ideas to be extended, instead of having them cut short by premature
definition and precision.
The word system is just such a word. It still has many meanings hidden in it. Among these meanings
there are two central ones: the idea of a system as a whole, and the idea of a generating system.
These two views, though supercially similar, are logically quite different. in the first case the word
system refers to a particular holistic view of a single thing. In the second case, the word system does
not refer to a single thing at all, but to a kit of parts and combinatory rules capable of generating many
things. [Alexander 2011, p. 58; Alexander 1968, p. 605]
Why use the word generation and/or generative? In 1995, on the C2 wiki entry on Generative Pattern
Jim Coplien wrote:
A generative pattern is one of the KindsOfPatterns . It is first a pattern; a solution to a problem in a
context. In the early days of patterns, we used the term generative to mean creational. But a closer
reading of Alexander shows that by generative, he means something that leads to emergent behavior.
Generative patterns work indirectly; they work on the underlying structure of a problem (which may
not be manifest in the problem) rather than attacking the problem directly. Good design patterns are
like that: they encode the deep structure (in the Senge sense) of a solution and its associated forces,
rather than cataloging a solution.
We can contrast a Generative Pattern with a GammaPattern , which is not generative. (That doesnt
make them bad, just different. Much of the software visualization work going on in the industry is all
about Gamma patterns.)
JimCoplien 1995/05/28
This distinction between non-generative and generative is fleshed out to a greater extent in writing by
Coplien in 1996 .
Generativity
In many problem-solving strategies, we try to attack problems directly. In doing so, we often attack
only symptoms, leaving the underlying problem unresolved. Alexander understood that good
solutions to architectural problems go at least one level deeper. The structures of a pattern are not
themselves solutions, but they generate solutions. Patterns that work this way are called generative
patterns. A generative pattern is a means of letting the problem resolve itself over time, just as a
flower unfolds from its seed:
9. This quality in buildings and in towns cannot be made, but only generated indirectly by the
ordinary actions of the people, just as a flower cannot be made, but only generated from the
seed (Alexander, 1979. p.xi)
And later:
An ordinary language like English is a system which allows us to create an infinite variety of
one dimensional combinations of words, called sentences. A pattern language is a system
which allows its users to create an infinite variety of those three dimensional combinations of
patterns which we call buildings, gardens, towns.
Thus, as in the case of natural languages, the pattern language is generative. It not only tells us
the rules of arrangement, but shows us how to construct arrangements as many as we want
which satisfy the rules. (Alexander, 1979: pp. 185 186)
Like many other facets of Alexanders philosophy, this philosophy can be traced back to Eastern
schools of thought (Lao Tsu principles of nonaction, part 3). This generativity is an important aspect
of the Quality Alexander seeks. It is an elusive quality, so elusive he calls it the quality without a name;
but we need not turn to esoteric sources for insights on the importance of generativity in problem-
solving; other contemporary sources will do. In Senge we find:
What, exactly, does it mean to say that structures generate particular patterns of behavior?
(Senge, 1990: p. 45) [Coplien 1996, p. 32]
a fundamental characteristic of complex human systems [is that] cause and effect are not
close in time and space. By effects, I mean the obvious symptoms that indicate that there are
problems drug abuse, unemployment, starving children, falling orders, and sagging profits. By
cause I mean the interaction of the underlying system that is most responsible for generating
the symptoms, and which, if recognized, could lead to changes producing lasting improvement.
Why is this a problem? Because most of us assume they are most of us assume, most of the
time, that cause and effect are close in time and space. (Senge, 1990: p. 63) [Coplien 1996, pp.
32-33]
[....]
Why is generativity important? First, as Senge says, most real problems go deeper than their surface
symptoms, and we need to address most interesting problems with emergent behavior. Second, a
good pattern is the fruit of hard work and intense review and refinement. Simple problems can be
addressed through simple rules, since the solutions are more direct or obvious than we find in
generative solutions. The pattern form excels an engaging the reader in generative solutions: to
understand the principles and values of lasting solutions and long-term emergent behavior. Good
patterns go beyond the quick fix. [Coplien 1996, pp. 33-34]
For Alexander, then, a system that is described as a whole but does not have any emergent properties misses
a hidden idea. For a systems thinker, the lack of a whole suggests a collection of parts in a network, rather
than a systemic whole.
2. A system as a whole is not an object but a way of looking at an object. It focuses on some
holistic phenomenon which can only be understood as a product of interaction among parts.
Alexander moves the ideas of system and whole away from the tangibleness of building construction ,
towards a phenomenological view of architecture .
Let us consider some examples of holistic phenomena which need to be viewed as systems.
[Alexander 2011, p. 59; Alexander 1968, p. 605]
The great depression is an obvious example of a holistic phenomenon. We cannot understand the
depression, except as a result of interaction among rates of consumption, capital investment and
savings: the interactions can be specified in the form of equations; if we follow these equations
through to their conclusion, we see that under certain conditions they must always lead to a
depression. [Alexander 2011, p. 59; Alexander 1968, p. 605-606]
The stability of a candle flame is another example of a holistic phenomenon. Why does it maintain
approximately the same size and shape throughout its ickering? In this case, the parts are flows of
vapourised wax, oxygen and burnt gases the processes of combustion and diffusion give the
interaction between these flows and these interactions show us at what size and shape the flame
will be approximately stable. [Alexander 2011, p. 59; Alexander 1968, p. 606]
Alexander describes more examples of a rope and a computer. He then focuses on stability as an essential
character that is a property of the whole.
Another kind of holistic behaviour is that instability which occurs in objects that are very vulnerable to
a change in one part: when one part changes, the other parts change also. We see this in the case of
erosion: cutting down trees robs the soil of the roots which hold it together, so that wind and water
can strip the soil of all remaining plants, and make a desert. We see it again in the death of the
traditional farm: when the combine harvester replaced traditional harvesting, the entire balance of
scale economies was destroyed, the little farms collapsed, and gave way to giant farms.
Let us summarise the content of these examples. In every case we are confronted with an object which
displays some kind of behaviour which can only be understood as a product of interaction among
parts within the object. We call this kind of behaviour, holistic behaviour.
The central point of the whole argument can be stated very simply. The most important properties
which anything can have are those properties that deal with its stability. It is stability which gives a
thing its essential character. The strength of an arch, the even burning of a flame, the growth of an
animal, the balance of a forest ecology, the steady flow of a river, the economic security of a nation,
the sanity of a human individual, the health of a society: these are all, in one way or another,
concerned with stability. [Alexander 2011, p. 60; Alexander 1968, p. 606]
Stability, no matter in which of its many forms, is a holistic property. It can only be understood as a
product of interaction among parts. The essential character of anything whatever, since it must at
heart be based on some kind of stability, must be understood as a product of interactions within the
whole. When we view a thing in such a way as to reveal its character in holistic terms, we speak of it as
a system. [Alexander 2011, p. 60; Alexander 1968, p. 606-607]
On the second point on holistic phenomenon and interaction between parts, Alexander is rather
exhaustive in his distinctions. The extended content can be excised with little impact for systems thinkers
(who wont learn much).
In order to speak of something as a system, we must be able to state clearly: (1) the holistic behaviour
which we are focusing on; (2) the parts within the thing, and the interactions among these parts,
which cause the holistic behaviour we have defined; (3) the way in which this interaction, among these
parts, causes the holistic behaviour defined.
If we can do these three, it means we have an abstract working model of the holistic behaviour in the
thing. In this case, we may properly call the thing a system, If we cannot do these three, we have no
model, and it is meaningless to call the thing a system. The idea of a system is synonymous with the
idea of an abstract model of some specific holistic behaviour. We may speak of the economic system in
a country, because we can construct a system of equations which reproduce important holistic
phenomena like depressions or inflation. If we couldnt do this, it would be meaningless to speak of
economic systems.
We must not use the word system, then, to refer to an object. A system is an abstraction. It is not a
special kind of thing, but a special way of looking at a thing. It is a way of focusing attention on some
particular holistic behaviour in a thing, which can only be understood as a product of interaction
among the parts. [Alexander 2011, p. 60; Alexander 1968, p. 607]
This second section focused on clarifying the understanding of systems and wholes, and didnt mention the
idea of generativity. This becomes the focus in the third section.
3. A generating system is not a view of a single thing. It is a kit of parts, with rules about the
way these parts may be combined.
On this third point, Alexander moves on from the discussion on wholes (i.e. single thing), to focus down on
part-part relations. The description of rules would seem to lead to an appreciation that some part-part
relations will not (or should not) work.
This is a different use of the word system from the first one. In colloquial English we often use the
word system to mean a way to do something: thats what a betting system is; thats what the
Montessori system is; thats what the democratic system is.
Each of these systems is, at heart, a system of rules. A betting system tells you how to place your bets,
the Montessori system lays down rules to be followed by children and teachers in nursery school the
democratic system of government lays down certain rules about the nature of representation, the
choice of representatives and the conduct of elections. In all these cases, the rules are designed to
generate things. A betting system supposedly generates winning bets, an educational system generates
well-educated pupils, the democratic system supposedly generates freedom and good government.
[Alexander 2011, p. 64; Alexander 1968, p. 609]
We may generalise the notion of a generative system. Such a system will usually consist of a kit of
parts {or elements) together with rules for combining these parts to form allowable things. The
formal systems of mathematics are systems in this sense. The parts numbers, variables, and signs like
+ and =. The rules specify ways of combining three parts to form expressions, and ways of forming
expressions from other expressions, and ways of forming true sentences from expressions, and ways
of forming true sentences from other true sentences. The combinations of parts, generated by such a
system, are the true sentences, hence theorems, of mathematics. Any combination of parts which is
not formed according to the rules is either meaningless or false. [Alexander 2011, pp. 64-65;
Alexander 1968, p. 609]
A generating system, in this sense, may have a very simple kit of parts, and very simple rules. Thus
the system of triangles which may be put together to form a square, is a generating system. Its rules
generate all the ways of putting these triangles together to form a square. It is typical of a system that
the rules rule out many combinations of the parts. Thus these triangles could be put together in an
infinite variety of ways but most of these ways are ruled out, because the outside perimeter is not a
square and this thing is not connected. [Alexander 2011, p. 65; Alexander 1968, p. 609-610]
Another example of a generating system, is the system of language. [....]
Perhaps the most interesting and important generating system in the world is the genetic system. [....]
A building system is a generating system in this sense. It provides a kit of parts columns, beams,
panels, windows, doors which must be put together according to certain rules. [Alexander 2011, p.
65; Alexander 1968, p. 610]
From a structural perspective, not every combination of parts fits together. From a process perspective, even
if the correct parts are available, not every sequence of assembly will produce the generating system.
4. Almost every system as a whole is generated by a generating system. If we wish to make
things which function as wholes we shall have to invent generating systems to create them.
Alexander doesnt rule out spontaneous order, but sees that as a rare event. For a system as a whole to have
the properties desired, the builders will most probably have to have a generating system to create the system
as a whole. Examples of physical systems and biological systems are cited.
There is a relationship between the two ideas of system which have been defined. Almost every object
with behaviour that depends on some system as a whole within the object, is itself created by a
generating system.
Take an obvious and simple case: a hi-fi system. its purity of performance can only be understood as a
product of the combined effect of all the various components, working as a whole. The same hi-fi
system is also generated by a generating system: the kit of all the parts on the market, and the rules
governing the electrical connections and impedance matching between these parts. [Alexander 2011,
p. 65; Alexander 1968, p. 610]
To take a more complicated case: the railroad switch-yard. [....]
The most complicated case of all, and the clearest, is that of an animal. A landing seagull certainly
needs to be seen as a system: so does almost everything else that seagulls do. At the same time, this
seagull is created by a generating system: the genetic system. An animal is both something which
needs to be seen holistically, and generated by a generating system.
The relationship between holistic systems and generating systems is easy to understand. If an object
has some holistic property caused by interaction among parts then it is clear that these particular
parts and these particular interactions will only come into being if the parts have very constrained
relationships to one another. The object then, must be generated by some process which assembles
parts according to certain constraints, chosen to ensure the proper interaction of these parts, when
the system operates. This is exactly what a generating system is.
The generating system need not be conscious (as in the case of the switch-yard), nor even always
explicit (as in the genetic case). Sometimes the processes which make up the generating systems are
integral with the object being formed thus the candle flame is generated by chemical processes
which are the same as those processes which then maintain the systems equilibrium and make up the
interacting parts, when we view the flame as a holistic system. [Alexander 2011, p. 66; Alexander
1968, p. 610]
Alexander turns to making a criticism and challenge for designers, as professionals who are focused on the
parts and not the whole.
[....] It is true then, that almost every system as a whole is generated by a generating system. This
axiom contains a remarkable lesson for designers. Man as a designer is concerned with the design and
construction of objects which function as wholes. Most of the important properties a city needs to
support life, for instance, are holistic properties.
Our axiom means this: to ensure the holistic system properties of buildings and cities, we must invent
generating systems, whose parts and rules will create the necessary holistic system properties of their
own accord.
This is a radical step in the conception of design. Most designers today think of themselves as the
designers of objects. If we follow the argument presented here, we reach a very different conclusion.
To make objects with complex holistic properties, it is necessary to invent generating systems which
will generate objects with the required holistic properties. The designer becomes a designer of
generating systems each capable of generating many objects rather than a designer of individual
objects. [Alexander 2011, p. 66; Alexander 1968, p. 610]
Closing the article, Alexander makes it clear that the whole is not delimited to just a building, but also the
social group that occupies it.
A final word of caution. As we have already seen, a building system is an example of a generating
system. It is a kit of parts with rules of combination. But not every generating system necessarily
creates objects with valuable holistic properties. The generating system which makes squares out of
triangles is an example. It is a perfectly good generating system; yet the objects it produces do
nothing: they have no holistic system properties whatever. In the same sense, those building systems
which have so far been conceived make buildings, but they do not make buildings with any really
important holistic system properties. In a properly functioning building, the building and the people
in it together form a whole: a social, human whole. The building systems which have so far been
created do not in this sense generate wholes at all. While it is inherent in the generating system of an
animal that the finished animal will work as a whole, it is not inherent in any of today s building
systems that the buildings they produce will work as social or human wholes. Creating building
systems in the present sense is not enough. We need a new, more subtle kind of building system,
which doesnt merely generate buildings, but generates buildings guaranteed to function as holistic
systems in the social, human sense. [Alexander 2011, p. 66-67; Alexander 1968, p. 610]
This 1968 article predates the pattern language publications starting in 1977. In Alexanders patterns on
towns, building and construction, human beings are parts of the whole as much as built environments. A
critical eye on pattern languages in other domains would check for similar inclusion of human beings in
social interactions.
References
Ahlquist, Sean, and Achim Mengers. 2011. Introduction Computational Design Thinking. In
Computational Design Thinking, edited by Achim Mengers and Sean Ahlquist, 1029. Chichester, England:
John Wiley & Sons. http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ib4yEJErR5EC&pg=PA10 .
Alexander, Christopher. 2011. Systems Generating Systems. In Computational Design Thinking, edited by
Achim Mengers and Sean Ahlquist, 5867. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ib4yEJErR5EC&pg=PA58 . Reproduced by permission of Christopher
Alexander, from Systems Generating Systems, Architectural Design, volume 38 (December), John Wiley &
Sons Ltd (London), 1968, pp. 605-610. Originally published in Systemat, a journal of the Inland Steel
Products Company.
Coplien, James O. 1996. Software Patterns. SIGS Books.
Steenson, Molly Wright. 2014. Architectures of Information: Christopher Alexander, Cedric Price, and
Nicholas Negroponte and MITs Architecture Machine Group. Doctoral dissertation, Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University. http://bit.ly/steenson-archofinfo-dissertation .
Steenson, Molly Wright. 2009. Loving and Hating Christopher Alexander presented at the Dot Dot Dot
Lecture, April 15, School of Visual Arts, New York City.
http://interactiondesign.sva.edu/archive/view/molly_wright_steenson/ .
Semaphores, signs, codes and dictionaries are all
types of systems that generate systems
(Title image in Alexander Systems Generating
Systems, Architectural Digest 38 (1968): 605.

Coevolving Innovations - Systems Generating Systems - Architectural Design Theory by Christopher Alexander (1968)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Coevolving Innovations - Systems Generating Systems - Architectural Design Theory by Christopher Alexander (1968)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

10/6/2014 Coevolving Innovations | Systems generating systems architectural design theory by Christopher Alexander (1968)

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen