11/3/15, 7:03 PMUnified Architectural Theory: Chapter 3 | ArchDaily

Page 1 of 6http://www.archdaily.com/447456/unified-architectural-theory-chapter-3

ArchDaily | BroadcastingArchitecture Worldwidethe world's most visited architecture website

About Contact Submit Advertise

Unified Architectural Theory: Chapter 3

We will be publishing Nikos Salingaros’ book, Unified Architectural Theory, in a series ofinstallments, making it digitally, freely available for students and architects around the world.The following chapter posits that architecture's geometric structure determines its "vitality," aquality that should be the basis of architectural critique; it also explains If you missed them,make sure to read the introduction, Chapter One, Chapter 2A, and Chapter 2B first.

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

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

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

A building’s geometry is a result of applying a particular form language chosen by thearchitect. This will determine, to a large extent, the emotional and physiological response ofthe user. A form language can aim at maximizing the perceived degree of “life” in thebuilding. Otherwise it can have other, entirely distinct objectives, depending on thepreference of the architect who employs it or creates it.

A form language includes the basic elements: floors, walls, ceilings, volumes and theirsubdivision, windows, materials, ornamentation, and the rules for combining them.Architectural composition within the context of a particular form language enables design inthat idiom.

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

Interior of the Horagolla Stables by Geoffrey Bawa, an example of architecture whose "formlanguage blends and connects with Pattern Language" . Image © Dominic Sansoni/Three

Blind Men Photography

MORE ARTICLES »

MOREARTICLES

MOSTVISITED

Famous LandmarksReimagined with PaperCutoutsArchitecture News

House in Toyonaka / TatoArchitectsSelected Projects

Elementary School in TelAviv / Auerbach HalevyArchitectsSelected Projects

MOST VISITEDPRODUCTS

Bookmark this picture!

11 NOV2013

by Nikos Salingaros

News ArticlesUnified Architectural Theory

Nikos Salingaros

Bookmark

47

TweetTweet

11

22

LikeLike

Projects News Articles Materials Interviews Competitions Events Classics More Log in | Sign upSearch ArchDaily

World

11/3/15, 7:03 PMUnified Architectural Theory: Chapter 3 | ArchDaily

Page 2 of 6http://www.archdaily.com/447456/unified-architectural-theory-chapter-3

Architecture is adaptive if its form language blends and connects with the Pattern language,and all traditional evolved form languages do so. Nevertheless, a form language could haveother goals and not be adaptive.

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

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

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

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

In contrast to historical times, today’s global consumerist culture treats a form language as acommercial product. Thus, its success depends upon both the marketing strategies of itsproponents, and profits to be made by those who apply it. Adaptivity does not enter theequation.

A form language lives or dies based on rather commonplace considerations: (i) Someonedecides to use that form language for a new building, and (ii) society values an older formlanguage sufficiently to leave its examples alone. Decisions on new buildings could bebased on adaptive value, how comfortable people feel in a building, ease of use, provenenvironment for human productivity, proven durability of materials, practicality for re-use,etc. Or a client could use totally different motives, such as perceived marketing appeal, re-use of a commercially-successful typology in speculative building, cost cutting, maximization

Synagogue de la rue Pavée à Paris, 1913, designed by Hector Guimard, is an example ofarchitecture whose "form language blends and connects with Pattern Language". Image ©

Flickr CC User designwallah

Metal 2.0Apavisa

Porcelain Stoneware»

TerraClad™ CeramicSunshade SystemBoston Valley Terra Cotta

Ceramics»

Facade panel lineaEQUITONE

Fiber Cements / Cements»

Receive the best architecture, everyday, via email.

Daily Newsletter Fortnightly Materials Newsletter

YOUR EMAIL SUBSCRIBE

11/3/15, 7:03 PMUnified Architectural Theory: Chapter 3 | ArchDaily

Page 3 of 6http://www.archdaily.com/447456/unified-architectural-theory-chapter-3

of usable space, etc.

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

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

Putting aside questions of adaptation, it is essential to catalogue and classify disparate formlanguages. A single building, group of buildings, the work of a single architect, or an entirearchitectural movement depend upon a form language. The fact of being built providesinformation on the form language. Another architect can extract the form language bystudying built examples.

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

Architects can learn a form language, and then use it to build many buildings, withoutaltering the language in any way. Other architects vary a form language to different degrees,introducing their own changes, which may be adaptive or not. Others still invent their ownform language so that their buildings become a “brand”. This helps achieve success in anage of corporate branding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11/3/15, 7:03 PMUnified Architectural Theory: Chapter 3 | ArchDaily

Page 4 of 6http://www.archdaily.com/447456/unified-architectural-theory-chapter-3

Cite:

success. They have generated enormous sales and profits for the architects and builderswho use them, and greater brand recognition. But that does not mean they had the bestinterests of the user and the environment in mind. In fact, the reasons habitually given forthose form languages’ success, like new industrial materials that permitted greater spannedspaces and building heights, already occurred at the end of the 19th century. Those factorspre-date and have nothing to do with the characteristic modernist “look”.

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

Connection to the deep needs of human beings and the natural order brings us back toreconsidering using Pattern language once again. We would like to be able to distinguishbetween form languages that connect to nature, from those that are merely fashionablesymbols of success. Such symbols are based upon criteria set by others, but they are notexpressions of deep human values.

Further Reading:

Christopher Alexander, The Phenomenon of Life, Chapter 2, “Degrees of Life” (Center forEnvironmental Structure, Berkeley, 2001).

Christopher Alexander, sampler from “A Pattern Language”, available online athttp://www.patternlanguage.com/apl/aplsample/aplsample.htm

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

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

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

Victor Horta's 1898 house and studio, now known as the Horta Museum, is an example ofarchitecture whose "form language blends and connects with Pattern Language". Image ©

Flickr CC User mksfca

Bookmark this picture!