I like much of what Christopher Alexander has written, but many of the patterns he writes about in
A Pattern Language are rooted in a mixture of opinion and sometimes evidence. There is an assumption that if an architectural pattern has endured for hundreds of years then its longevity is evidence enough of its universal application.
I'm particularly interested in what Alexander has to say about residential housing, and this strongly-worded opinion from A Pattern Language in particular has always intrigued me:
“In any urban area, no matter how dense, keep the majority of buildings four storeys high or less. It is possible that certain buildings should exceed this limit, but they should never be buildings for human habitation.”
Alexander goes on to argue that high rise living can be socially isolating:
“High rise living takes people away from the ground and away from the casual, everyday society that occurs on the sidewalks and streets and on the grounds and porches. It leaves them alone in their apartments. The decision to go out for some public life becomes formal and awkward; and unless there is some specific task which brings people out in the world, the tendency is to stay home, alone.”
The arguments sound quite convincing, but I’m not sure I agree entirely with the four storey limit. I think there are also cultural and social factors that contribute to whether high-rise living is a success or a failure. For example, how well are housing blocks stitched into the fabric of the urban landscape (instead of situated, isolated, outside of urban centres)?
And in some countries (e.g. Hong Kong and Singapore) high-rise living is a necessity. Having said that, it is also a mistake to assume that high-rise building is the only answer to high-density development e.g. https://imgur.com/LmJ1tTg (from a book called At Home in the City: an introduction to urban design)