1. The center of the way

    The advice I’ve received from those who are close to the center of this timeless way of building is to start small. Like with a piece of tile, or a tea tray. And to then imagine along with Christopher Alexander:

    What it would be like
    to live in a mental world
    where one’s reasons
    for making something
    functionally
    and one’s reasons
    for making something
    a certain shape,
    or in a certain
    ornamental way
    are coming
    from precisely
    the same place
    in you
    .

  2. Seduction

    “The classic pervasive seduction to designers is finding a solution instead of the truth.” — Richard Saul Wurman

  3. What the material wants to be

    Part of how Lou Kahn made things be good was to ask the material what it wanted to do and be. He asked brick what it liked, and would get a different answer depending on the context for the building. In Dacca, the capital of Bangladesh, brick said it liked an arch. For the Korman House in Philadelphia, brick said it liked two giant fireplaces with a lintel between them for a doorway beneath and a balcony above.

    1. ​The material finds the right object​
    2. ​We are working against the grain of the wood​
    3. ​The joy of the humble brick​
  4. Asking yourself some questions

    All of the moves that we make in space will tend toward being in accord with this phenomenon of wholeness / beauty / life if we’re willing to bring the requisite level of care to the doing of our work.

    Alexander says that each of us possess the means for accessing this order within ourselves and — here’s where he loses most other architects and many in the so-called sciences in academia — he contends that what we’re connecting with inside of ourselves is an objective criterion for what good means.

    Applying the criterion is easy: you ask yourself some questions:

    With any action you might take with regard to placement, and with regard to the situatedness of things in space you ask yourself: does this move increase wholeness / beauty / life?

    Does the intervention you’re taking intensify the feelings of wholeness in you as the maker when you are performing the work?

    How does your work on this one part enhance what’s going on among wholes at the system level?

  5. Losing meaning

    The people who’ve proven that they can make very good individual products with the radical focus of a spotlight seem to be pushed ever further from making good ecosystems.

    Products are being made “consistent” with the application of so-called “design patterns,” and rather than bringing coherence to these various touch-points, the painting-on of interface standards and interaction patterns did something far less valuable.

    Rote consistency, in the way many seem to be going about it (Material Design being just one example), is at odds with making things be good. It simplifies what needs to remain complex.

    Always, when simplification is underway, meaning is being lost.

  6. Two coffee trays

    Image from medium.com on 2020-05-24 at 10.26.16 AM.png

    We speculate that the shop owners designed and built an initial quantity of these remarkable coffee trays, replete with what Alexander considers to be the fifteen geometric properties that correlate with wholeness / beauty / life.

    Then they got busy. And then they got successful. They needed more coffee trays, and our hypothesis is that somebody decided to simplify the trays to ensure they could be produced in the quantities and at the price that worked for their budget, within an urgent food-service timeline.

    The simplified tray fulfills every function the more complex tray does, with less fuss in manufacturing on account of having standardized its geometry. The simplified tray works, but isn’t alive. It lacks the gradients, local symmetries, levels of scale, contrast, and boundaries that are all present and accounted for in the tray that’s got wholeness / beauty / life. The tray with wholeness isn’t necessarily better than the simpler one. But it is good.