117
2. Morphogenetic sequences and the system of rules are considered the second kind of generative
process. This process works within a dynamic system of organized rules and is applied in a sequential manner. In the context of architecture, planning and urban design this has been described in the
book A New Theory of Urban Design (Alexander et al., 1987); and
3. The third kind of generative process is reflected in the ‘generative code’ (urban), which includes
systems to design, develop, and build a coherent, living neighbourhood that is ‘alive’, sustainable,
active and beautiful, and which unfolds through the people that live there.
An explanation of generative processes, as above, raises a few questions. What is the relationship
of patterns in nature with patterns in the built environment, in the context of Alexander’s pattern language? Do the morphogenetic sequences and the generative code reflect the living properties of
nature? We will explore in further detail the three generative processes in relation to the context of the
regenerative- adaptive pattern language proposed in this book.
9.4 Pattern Language for Design
Undeniably, the identification of the nature of design problems and the proposed solution through a
mathematical method in Alexander’s Notes on the Synthesis of Form (1964) set the foundation for
patterns and pattern language. Logical structures form the order of the method, and the design solution include a process of conceptual order and patterns. The rationale behind the method is the use of
logical structures, similar to what was used in the creation of form by unself-conscious cultures.
1
Alexander makes a comparison between ‘unself-conscious’ and ‘self-conscious’ cultures to explain
the concept of logic and patterns, especially in the method of making things and buildings. In unselfconscious cultures there is very little thought about aesthetics and architecture as such (Alexander,
1964, p. 33), whereas in our self-conscious cultures, engineering, architecture and art have been
prominent in the design of things and buildings, classified within styles and periods. Unself- conscious
cultures repeat patterns of tradition, where form is informed by symbols (Van der Ryn, 2005), and
there is a right way or a wrong way to make and build things (Alexander, 1964). In unself-conscious
cultures, form-making is learnt informally, through imitation and correction. Primitive forms have
good structure from a process of gradual adaptation, thus the system passes through history adapting
forms to the context of the environment.
These complex patterns and forms appear continuously across generations in Africa, in representations of phenomenal complex fractals in settlement architecture, cross-cultural engagements, and
logarithmic scaling in designs (Eglash, 1999 [2005]). Adaptation through scale linking is clearly
demonstrated in circular fractals in the Ba-ila settlement in southern Zambia, as demonstrated by
Eglash (1999 [2005], p. 27), as well as the settlements of traditional Zulu villages and many others
(Fig. 9.2).
Based on these principles of primitive form- making, Alexander introduced a method that could
potentially solve problems of the design and development of the buildings of self- conscious cultures
(as opposed to unself- conscious cultures), introducing the idea of a pattern, and consequently formulating the basis of the ‘pattern language’ (Alexander, 1964). Although Alexander argued that the
structure of a pattern is very simple, the results of this kind of fusing relationships can be highly complex, similar to what can be found in traditional environments as demonstrated in the Ba-ila, traditional Zulu villages, and many other African settlements. This notion of simplicity generating
1 Unself-conscious cultures noted by Alexander relates to traditional, indigenous, or primitive cultures that were the first
peoples of the land (Alexander, 1964, p. 33)
9.4 Pattern Language for Design
2. Morphogenetic sequences and the system of rules are considered the second kind of generative
process. This process works within a dynamic system of organized rules and is applied in a sequential manner. In the context of architecture, planning and urban design this has been described in the
book A New Theory of Urban Design (Alexander et al., 1987); and
3. The third kind of generative process is reflected in the ‘generative code’ (urban), which includes
systems to design, develop, and build a coherent, living neighbourhood that is ‘alive’, sustainable,
active and beautiful, and which unfolds through the people that live there.
An explanation of generative processes, as above, raises a few questions. What is the relationship
of patterns in nature with patterns in the built environment, in the context of Alexander’s pattern language? Do the morphogenetic sequences and the generative code reflect the living properties of
nature? We will explore in further detail the three generative processes in relation to the context of the
regenerative- adaptive pattern language proposed in this book.
9.4 Pattern Language for Design
Undeniably, the identification of the nature of design problems and the proposed solution through a
mathematical method in Alexander’s Notes on the Synthesis of Form (1964) set the foundation for
patterns and pattern language. Logical structures form the order of the method, and the design solution include a process of conceptual order and patterns. The rationale behind the method is the use of
logical structures, similar to what was used in the creation of form by unself-conscious cultures.
1
Alexander makes a comparison between ‘unself-conscious’ and ‘self-conscious’ cultures to explain
the concept of logic and patterns, especially in the method of making things and buildings. In unselfconscious cultures there is very little thought about aesthetics and architecture as such (Alexander,
1964, p. 33), whereas in our self-conscious cultures, engineering, architecture and art have been
prominent in the design of things and buildings, classified within styles and periods. Unself- conscious
cultures repeat patterns of tradition, where form is informed by symbols (Van der Ryn, 2005), and
there is a right way or a wrong way to make and build things (Alexander, 1964). In unself-conscious
cultures, form-making is learnt informally, through imitation and correction. Primitive forms have
good structure from a process of gradual adaptation, thus the system passes through history adapting
forms to the context of the environment.
These complex patterns and forms appear continuously across generations in Africa, in representations of phenomenal complex fractals in settlement architecture, cross-cultural engagements, and
logarithmic scaling in designs (Eglash, 1999 [2005]). Adaptation through scale linking is clearly
demonstrated in circular fractals in the Ba-ila settlement in southern Zambia, as demonstrated by
Eglash (1999 [2005], p. 27), as well as the settlements of traditional Zulu villages and many others
(Fig. 9.2).
Based on these principles of primitive form- making, Alexander introduced a method that could
potentially solve problems of the design and development of the buildings of self- conscious cultures
(as opposed to unself- conscious cultures), introducing the idea of a pattern, and consequently formulating the basis of the ‘pattern language’ (Alexander, 1964). Although Alexander argued that the
structure of a pattern is very simple, the results of this kind of fusing relationships can be highly complex, similar to what can be found in traditional environments as demonstrated in the Ba-ila, traditional Zulu villages, and many other African settlements. This notion of simplicity generating
1 Unself-conscious cultures noted by Alexander relates to traditional, indigenous, or primitive cultures that were the first
peoples of the land (Alexander, 1964, p. 33)
9.4 Pattern Language for Design