Philosophy of Architecture (2015)

Christopher Alexander is one architect with one view. I used to think he was the end all but he's not. There are or ought to be as many approaches to architecture as there are architectural projects – because architecture is a practice that first and foremost fits a solution to a context, if there ought to be a solution whatsoever. Fundamentally architecture is about synthesizing integrative visions: everything else follows from this.

Patterns are not necessarily wrong, but presume a universality in architectural problems from the outset that can narrow your perception of what ought to be done too quickly.

Alexander's "avoid symmetry-breaking" as a design principle is germane across almost all styles of architecture though. Whether or not an architect likes to obey, ignore, or disrupt symmetries is the big tell as to what school of thought they subscribe to.

>When I walk into a brutalist space, I feel minuscule and irrelevant.

That's a good feeling! Brutalist structures are like alien megaliths. You see one and go "Holy shit, the world is full of big mysterious things!"

I contrast it with the mall or the fishbowl office building. Those are spaces designed to soothe your every personal need, but the subtle purpose is really to extract value from you. They are superficially pleasant but devoid of meaning. Brutalism on the other hand is a call to adventure, and refuses to coddle anybody.

But maybe you're thinking more of like a Japanese garden, something truly beautiful and contemplative. That's the opposite of Brutalism in a good way, and both have their place. I just hate it when people reject brutalism for being "spiritless" yet welcome the most sanitized, commercialized alternatives.

I'm with you on brutalism. It makes a space in which human beings don't fit. So who are they building for, if not humans? Concrete mixers?