The status quo of architecture and its impact on urban management: Christopher Alexander’s insights

Alexander’s critique of modern architecture is not only a call for reform within the architectural discipline but also a blueprint for rethinking urban management.

Bin Jiang LivableCityLAB, Thrust of Urban Governance and Design, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou), China

Christopher Alexander argued that modernist approach to architecture prioritizes innovation, abstraction, and mechanistic efficiency at the expense of human-centered and organic values. According to Christopher Alexander, this shift has led to a proliferation of buildings that are visually striking, but often feel cold, impersonal, and disconnected from the deeper needs of the people who inhabit and/or see them. Alexander called for a return to timeless architectural principles such as harmony, balance, and a deep connection to the natural and cultural context. He introduced the concept of living structure, which emphasizes creating spaces that resonate with the intrinsic order found in nature and human life, fostering environments that are not only functional and beautiful but also profoundly lifeaffirming. Alexander challenged the dominance of “iconic” but alienating designs, calling for a holistic, humancentered approach to architecture that prioritizes the well-being of individuals and communities, creating spaces that nurture a sense of place, belonging, and harmony with the world around them.

1. Introduction

The architectural landscape of the 20th and 21st centuries has been marked by a profound and pervasive crisis that was vocally critiqued by Christopher Alexander, a seminal figure in architectural theory (Mehaffy, 2007a; 2007b; Salingaros, 2020). This crisis strikes at the core of architectural practice and education. Following the rise of modernism, architecture has increasingly been driven by principles that prioritize novelty, abstraction, and mechanistic efficiency (Jencks, 2002) over humanistic and organic values. The shift toward sleek and often sterile forms has led to buildings that are visually innovative, but fail to engage with the deeper aspects of human experience and environmental harmony. This architectural crisis mirrors broader challenges in urban management, where cities are increasingly prioritizing innovation and efficiency at the expense of human-centered values. This paper situates Alexander’s insights within the urban context, proposing that the principles he advocated for—such as harmony, balance, and living structure— are crucial for shaping cities that are both functional and socially sustainable.

Christopher Alexander’s critique of contemporary architecture (Alexander, 2002-2005) is both scathing and insightful. He contended that the modernist movement, which emphasizes on breaking from tradition and embracing industrialization and technology as ends in themselves, has led to a disconnection between architecture and its fundamental purpose, which is to create spaces that nurture, sustain, and enhance human life. The modernist agenda, with its focus on form over substance and on the aestheticization of the machine, has produced an architectural landscape dominated by buildings that may be visually striking but are often devoid of the qualities that make spaces feel alive and meaningful.

Alexander’s insights challenge the foundations of modernist practices. He questioned the validity of an architectural approach that views buildings as mere objects to be admired for their visual “impact”, rather than as structurally living entities that must interact harmoniously with their environment and the people who inhabit and/or see them. According to Alexander, the crisis in architecture (see Section 2 for more details) is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to create spaces that are truly beautiful and meaningful. According to Alexander, beauty, is not a superficial attribute but a manifestation of deeper, more complex relationships between a space and its users, between form and function, and between the built environment and the natural world.

Alexander’s diagnosis of the ailments afflicting contemporary architecture is both a critique and a call to action. Alexander advocated for a profound rethinking of the discipline that moves away from the mechanistic, dehumanized approaches that have dominated the field for the past century (Le Corbusier 1923; Millais, 2017; Curl 2018) towards a return to the principles that have historically governed the creation of architecture. These principles, which emphasize harmony, balance, and a deep connection to the natural and cultural context (Alexander, 1979), are rooted in a timeless understanding of what makes spaces meaningful and alive.

Alexander did not merely call for a revival of past styles or forms (Alexander, 2002); he sought a reinvigoration of the underlying values that have always made architecture a vital and life-affirming discipline. His vision for architecture is deeply rooted in the recognition of the intrinsic order and beauty that is inherent in the natural world, emphasizing that the built environment must resonate with these qualities to truly serve humanity. This paper reviews the current architectural crisis and the rise of the grassroots movement toward new traditional architecture (NTA). We introduce the concept of living structure and critically examine modernist architecture, with a focus on starchitects. Finally, we present a new vision of architecture rooted in living structure, framed within an organic view of space and the world.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 addresses the architectural crisis, examining how modernist architecture has strayed from holistic design principles. Section 3 explores the grassroots movement that calls for NTA, advocating for a return to enduring design values. Section 4 introduces Alexander’s concept of living structure, proposing a more integrated and life-affirming approach to architecture. Section 5 critiques the role of “starchitects” and the focus on novelty over substance, while Section 6 presents a holistic vision for the future of architecture. Finally, Section 7 draws on Alexander’s insights and concludes with the implications of our research.

2. The architectural crisis

The crisis in contemporary architecture, as observed by Alexander (2002-2005), originates from a profound departure from the holistic and integrative principles that historically guided the discipline and architectural practices. In earlier architectural traditions, design was an organic process in which every element of a building was conceived in relation to the whole, ensuring that the final structure was not only functional but also imbued with a sense of harmony and life (Venturi, 1966; Curl 2018; Alexander 1979; Alexander 2002-2005). This approach recognized the importance of creating spaces that were in tune with both their physical environment and the psychological needs of their inhabitants or the people in general.

The advent of modernist architecture in the 20th century marked a significant shift in this paradigm. Modernism, driven by rapid technological advancements and the desire to break away from historical precedents, embraced a mechanistic worldview (Curl, 2018; Descartes 1644, 1983). This perspective viewed buildings as machines, reducing architecture to a series of functional components that can be assembled and manipulated with little regard for their relationship to the broader environment or to human experience (see Fig. 1 for two types of architecture). The focus shifted towards efficiency, standardization, and a minimalist aesthetic that favored stark forms and abstract geometries over the warmth and richness of traditional designs.

This mechanistic approach led to form being prioritized over function. Architects became more concerned with creating “iconic” structures that could stand out in a crowded urban landscape, often at the expense of the human experience. The result was a proliferation of buildings that, while visually striking, often lacked the deeper qualities that contribute to a sense of place and belonging (Lewicka, 2011). These structures were characterized by sleek lines and bold forms, but frequently appeared cold, impersonal, and disconnected from the needs of the people who used and/saw them.

Alexander described this phenomenon as a form of “ugliness” that has came to dominate cities and towns in the 20th and 21st centuries. This ugliness is not merely a matter of aesthetic preference; it reflects a deeper malaise in the way we conceive and create our built environment. Instead of creating spaces that nurture and support human life (Alexander, 1979), we have constructed environments that often feel alienating and lack the qualities that make places feel alive and welcoming. The root of this ugliness lies in the detachment of architectural practice from the principles of harmony, order, and beauty that once guided the creation of human-centered spaces.

This architectural crisis is exacerbated by the growing influence of commercial interests in the design process. In a world where economic considerations often dictate design choices, the creation of spaces has become increasingly driven by market forces and superficial trends. In a quest for profitability and recognition, developers and architects may opt for designs that are flashy and attention-grabbing but ultimately fail to meet the deeper needs of the people who inhabit and/see them. The result is a built environment that prioritizes short-term visual appeal and commercial success over long-term sustainability and human well-being.

This crisis is evident in the way many modern buildings and urban evelopments appear disconnected from their surroundings and the people who use and/see them. The homogenization of design, with its reliance on standardized materials and construction techniques, has led to the creation of spaces that lack character and fail to resonate with the unique identities of the communities they serve. In contrast to the richly textured and contextually sensitive architecture of the past (Fig. 2), a lot of modern architecture seems sterile and out of place, contributing to a sense of disorientation and fragmentation in cities.

Alexander’s critique of modernist architecture represents a call to return to a more human-centered approach to design that recognizes the importance of creating spaces that are not only functional but also deeply connected to the lives and experiences of the people. Alexander proposed reengagement with the principles of harmony, order, and beauty, suggesting that it is only by restoring these values to their rightful place at the heart of architectural practice that we can begin to address the crisis that has engulfed the discipline.

This crisis is reflected in the design of modern cities. Prioritizing sleek, mechanistic structures over organic and human-centered design has contributed to urban environments that lack vitality and fail to foster a sense of place. As cities grow, the need for a more holistic, human-centered approach to urban design and management becomes increasingly urgent.

3. The movement towards a new traditional architecture

In response to the perceived shortcomings of modernism, a burgeoning movement known as “new traditional architecture” has emerged, championed by figures like Michael Diamant (2008). This movement consciously rejects the dominant architectural trends of the 20th and 21st centuries, which often prioritized innovation, abstraction, and stylistic experimentation at the expense of timeless design principles (Alexander, 1979). Proponents of NTA argue that the aesthetic and functional dissonance found in a lot of modernist architecture has contributed to the “uglification” of urban environments through buildings that, despite being celebrated for their novelty, fail to resonate with the deeper human need for beauty, order, and harmony.

Essentially NTA is a call to return to the classical principles that have guided architectural practice for millennia. These principles, rooted in the traditions of ancient Greece and Rome and refined through the Renaissance and other periods of architectural flourishing, emphasize the importance of proportion, scale, and harmony in design. Similarly, traditional architectures from diverse cultural heritages, such as Chinese, Japanese, Korean, African, Spanish, and other indigenous and regional styles developed over centuries, embody their own expressions of these principles, often incorporating elements of symmetry, spatial balance, and natural harmony that reflect the values, beliefs, and environmental contexts of their respective societies. While modernist architecture often seeks to break from the past and create entirely new forms, NTA embraces historical precedents as a source of enduring wisdom. The movement asserts that the classical approach holds intrinsic value, fostering a universally recognizable sense of balance and coherence that is deeply comforting. This is exemplified by the 15 geometrical and transformational properties (Fig. 3) that are believed to be universal (Alexander, 2002-2005) across all architectural traditions and cultural contexts.

Proponents of NTA have criticized it’s the tendency of modernism to create spaces that feel alienating and disjointed. The stark, minimalist forms and monolithic structures often appear cold, impersonal, and disconnected from both the human scale and the natural environment. In contrast, NTA aims to design buildings that are not only functional but also deeply connected to human emotions and experiences. Because they incorporate living structures, which evoke a strong sense of place attachment (Lewicka, 2011). By employing architectural principles such as levels of scale, local symmetries, thick boundaries, and alternating repetition, NTA fosters environments that feel harmonious and emotionally resonant.

NTA also emphasizes the importance of creating spaces that are “alive” which means they resonate with the human spirit and contribute to the well-being of their occupants. This concept of “aliveness” is closely related to the concept of living structure (Alexander, 2002-2005), where the built environment is designed in a way that supports human life in its fullest sense, encouraging interaction, reflection, and a sense of belonging. Therefore NTA is not merely about replicating the past but about drawing on timeless principles (Alexander, 1979; Alexander, 2002-2005) to create environments that are vibrant and responsive to the needs of contemporary society.

The resurgence of traditional architectural practices can also be seen as a form of resistance against the homogenization of global architecture. International styles have becoming increasingly dominating, leading to cities around the world looking increasingly alike. As a response to this, NTA advocates for a more localized, culturally informed approach. By re-engaging with regional architectural traditions, this movement seeks to restore a sense of place and identity to the built environment (Lewicka, 2011), ensuring that architecture reflects the values, history, and character of the communities it serves.

In essence, the movement towards NTA is both a critique of the modernist paradigm and a proactive effort to reclaim the lost art of building. It invites architects to look beyond the transient allure of novelty and to rediscover the enduring qualities of beauty, proportion, and harmony that have defined great architecture throughout history. Through this approach, NTA aims to create spaces that are not only aesthetically pleasing but also deeply resonant with the human condition, fostering environments that nurture both the body and the soul.

4. Living structure: A new perspective on architecture

The concept of living structure introduces a transformative way of thinking about architecture and urban management that moves beyond the mechanistic and reductionist views that have long dominated the discipline. This concept suggests that all matter, whether organic or inorganic, possesses a degree of life, not merely in a biological sense but as an intrinsic quality of its structure and arrangement (Alexander, 2002-2005, Gabriel & Quillien, 2019; Jiang, 2019). This idea challenges the conventional understanding of architecture as simply being the assembly of materials to meet functional requirements (Jiang & Huang, 2021). Instead, it invites us to consider the deeper, often intangible qualities that make a space feel alive, resonant, and meaningful. In urban environments, living structure encourages the creation of cities that grow organically and remain adaptable over time emphasizing the importance of interconnectedness, both within the built environment and between the city and its natural surroundings. By applying living structure principles, urban managers and planners can create spaces that support social interaction, foster a sense of community, and enhance the overall well-being of their residents.

The notion of living structure is a direct response to the mechanistic worldview that has heavily influenced modern architecture. This view often conceives buildings as machines that are composed of discrete parts that operate independently to serve specific functions. While this approach has led to innovations in efficiency and the optimization of space, it has also resulted in designs that can feel cold, alienating, and disconnected from their environment. Alexander argued that while such structures may meet functional and aesthetic criteria on the surface, they often lack the deeper sense of life that makes a space truly engaging and supportive of human well-being.

The living structure concept posits that spaces and buildings can be designed to resonate with their surroundings, creating a sense of harmony, coherence, and vitality. This resonance is not just a matter of visual appeal; it is a quality that can be measured objectively and felt subjectively. For instance, a living structure might incorporate patterns, proportions, and relationships that echo those found in nature, fostering a deep connection between the built environment and the natural world (see Fig. 4 for two examples: one with a more dynamic, living structure, and the other with a less vibrant, more static design). This approach requires us to consider every element of a building, from the smallest detail to the overall form, as part of an interconnected whole that contributes to the life of the structure.

One of the key principles that Alexander emphasized is the importance of ‘centers’ or substructures as referred to by this author (see Fig. 4 for substructures) within a design. These centers are focal points that naturally attract attention and organize the space around them. In a living structure, centers are not isolated elements but are part of a network of relationships that give the building its sense of coherence and vitality. The degree of life in a structure can be assessed by how well these centers are integrated and how they contribute to the overall harmony of space.

The implications of living structure extend far beyond individual buildings. Alexander’s ideas challenge us to think about the broader context in which the buildings’ designs and plans exist. A building that embodies living structure does not just stand alone; it contributes to the life of its surrounding environment, whether that is a neighborhood, a city, or a landscape. This holistic perspective encourages us to consider how our designs and plans will interact with and enhance the natural and social fabric around them. It also requires a sensitivity to the cultural and historical context, ensuring that new structures respect and contribute to the continuity of the built environment.

Alexander’s philosophy also critiques the mechanistic approach that often dominates architectural and urban education and practice, where a design or plan is segmented into functional, aesthetic, and technical aspects. Alexander argued that this fragmented approach fails to capture the essence of what makes a space feel alive. Instead, he advocated for an organic approach that views buildings as living entities, deeply intertwined with the lives of the people who use them and the environments they inhabit. This perspective encourages us to design with a sense of stewardship, recognizing that our design work is not just about creating isolated structures but about contributing to the ongoing story of human life and the natural world.

Alexander’s living structure concept invites us to fundamentally rethink architecture as a discipline. It challenges the notion that buildings should be designed solely for efficiency or visual impact and instead emphasizes the creation of spaces that resonate with the deeper needs of human beings and the natural world. This holistic, human-centered approach calls for a return to timeless principles of design, such as levels of scale, local symmetries, thick boundaries, and echoes, which have always underpinned great architecture. By embracing these principles, we can create spaces that are not only functional and beautiful but also profoundly life-affirming—spaces that engage the senses, foster well-being, and contribute to a greater sense of harmony in the world.

As we look towards the future of architecture, Alexander’s insights remind us that the most enduring and beloved spaces are those that embody the principles of living structure. These are the spaces that people return to time and again, that become woven into the fabric of their lives, and that stand the test of time not because of their boldness or innovation, but because of their deep-rooted connection to human nature and the natural world. In a world increasingly dominated by rapid technological change and fleeting trends, the concept of living structure offers a return to the timeless values that make architecture a true art form.

Adopting this perspective allows us to move beyond the current fragmented, utilitarian practices towards a more integrated, meaningful approach to design. This approach not only addresses the shortcomings of modernist ideologies but also lays the foundation for a future in which the built environment is seen as a living, breathing entity that affirms and enriches our daily lives. Through the lens of living structure, architecture can again become a discipline that serves the deeper needs of humanity, creating spaces that are not only practical and beautiful but also profoundly resonant with the essence of life itself.

5. Critique of modernist architecture and the role of starchitects

Christopher Alexander’s critique of modernist architecture targets not just the aesthetic and functional flaws but also the cultural and philosophical forces behind its adoption. A key focus is on “starchitects”, that is, architects celebrated for their bold and visually striking designs. While these starchitects are indeed influential, they often exacerbate the issues they aim to solve, contributing to disjointed urban environments. And although their iconic buildings are attention-grabbing, they can also disrupt the urban fabric, creating uninviting spaces disconnected from everyday life. Alexander’s critique underscores the need for urban design that prioritizes human experience over architectural spectacle.

5.1. The rise of starchitects and the pursuit of novelty

The 20th century witnessed the emergence of starchitects who were driven by the desire to leave a personal mark on the architectural landscape, and therefore prioritized novelty and individual expression over the more enduring values of beauty, functionality, and harmony. This pursuit of the new and the unique became a hallmark of modernist architecture, leading to the creation of buildings that, while visually striking, often failed to meet the needs of the people who lived and worked in them. Alexander characterized this phenomenon as a “mass psychosis” (Alexander, 2002- 2005), a term that reflects the widespread and almost uncritical acceptance of these avant-garde approaches to design. Architects became more concerned with making bold statements and pushing the boundaries of form, often at the expense of creating spaces that were livable, comfortable, and in tune with human scale and needs. This obsession with novelty led to the proliferation of what Alexander called “insane, image-ridden, hollow” architecture – buildings that may appear “impressive”, but are ultimately disconnected from the realities of everyday life.

5.2. The disconnect between architecture and human experience

One of Alexander’s key critiques is that modernist architecture, as epitomized by the work of many starchitects, often results in a built environment that is at odds with the needs and desires of its users or the people. The emphasis on abstract forms, stark materials, and unconventional designs can lead to the creation of spaces that feel alienating, cold, and unwelcoming. Instead of enhancing human life, these buildings can create environments that are uncomfortable, disorienting, and even oppressive.

The fundamental purpose of architecture is to create spaces that support and enrich human, not only by meeting functional requirements but also by addressing the psychological and emotional needs of the people who inhabit and/see these spaces. In its quest for innovation and self-expression, modernist architecture often neglects these aspects, leading to a widespread dissatisfaction with the built environment.

5.3. The role of starchitects in perpetuating architectural ugliness

Through their significant influence and visibility, starchitects have played a crucial role in shaping the architectural trends of the 20th and 21st centuries. However, Alexander argued that their work often contributes to the uglification of cities. The pursuit of iconic status can lead architects to prioritize form over substance, resulting in buildings that, may be visually striking, but lack the deeper qualities that make a space truly beautiful and meaningful.

Moreover, the influence of starchitects extends beyond individual buildings to the broader cultural and professional context of architecture. Their work instigates trends and norms that other architects feel pressured to follow, even when these trends may not serve the best interests of the people who use the buildings. This has led to a homogenization of architectural styles, where the same kinds of stark, abstract forms are replicated across different cities and contexts, contributing to a sense of disconnection and placelessness in the built environment.

5.4. A call for a return to human-centered design

Alexander’s critique is a condemnation of modernist architecture and starchitects, but also a call to action. He advocated for a return to an architecture that is grounded in human experience, prioritizing the creation of spaces that are not only functional but also deeply resonant with the people who use and/or see them. This involves moving away from the pursuit of novelty for its own sake and instead focusing on the timeless principles of beauty, harmony, and wholeness.

In Alexander’s view, architects should see themselves as creators of environments that support and enhance human life, not as artists striving for personal expression. Doing this requires a profound shift in how architecture is conceived and practiced, moving away from the abstract, mechanistic approaches of modernism towards a more organic, human-centered way of thinking about space and design

6. Towards a new vision of architecture

Christopher Alexander’s vision for the transformation of architecture represents a paradigm shift away from the fragmented, mechanistic views (Descartes, 1644) that have dominated the field since the advent of modernism. Alexander critiqued the reductionist approach that characterized a lot of 20th-century architecture, where buildings ware often treated as mere objects composed of isolated parts. This approach strips architecture of its deeper meaning and fails to create spaces that truly resonate with the human spirit.

Instead, Alexander called for an architectural practice rooted in holistic thinking (Bohm, 1980; Whitehead, 1929). In his view, a building should not be seen as a collection of separate components— walls, windows, roofs, etc.—but as an integrated whole where every element is interrelated and contributes to a larger whole. This holistic approach recognizes that the function of a building cannot be divorced from its form, and that ornamentation is not merely decorative but instead integral to the structure’s overall harmony and coherence. This emphasis on the inseparability of function and ornament challenges the minimalist tendencies of modernism, where the pursuit of “form follows function” often leads to stark, lifeless spaces.

The concept of living structure describe spaces that possess a certain quality of life. This idea is not limited to organic forms and applies to all matter, whether natural or manmade. A living structure is one that embodies a sense of order, harmony, and wholeness, making it resonate deeply with those who experience it. The degree to which a building or space is “alive” is determined by its structure—specifically, how its various parts relate to each other and to the whole. A space that is rich in connections, patterns, and coherence will naturally evoke a sense of wellbeing and comfort in its occupants.

To achieve this vision, Alexander called for architects to develop a deep understanding of the principles that govern living structures. This involves studying the patterns and relationships (Alexander et al., 1977) found in nature, which have evolved over millennia to create environments that support life. Applying these principles to architectural design documented in his magnum opus The Nature of Order (Alexander, 2002- 2005) enables us to create spaces that are not only functional but also deeply attuned to physical and emotional human needs. This approach requires a shift in focus from designing buildings as isolated objects to viewing them as part of a larger, interconnected whole.

Moreover, Alexander’s vision emphasizes the importance of creating spaces that resonate with human feelings and experiences. He argued that architecture should move beyond mere utility and aesthetics to engage with the deeper aspects of human existence. In his view, a well-designed building should evoke feelings of peace, joy, and a sense of belonging and should be a place where people feel connected to themselves, to others, and to the world around them (Alexander, 1979). This requires us to consider the physical dimensions of space as well as its psychological and emotional impact.

In practice, this means designing spaces that are adaptable, human-centric, and responsive to the changing needs of their users. It involves incorporating elements that foster a sense of continuity with the past while accommodating the realities of the present and future. Thus Alexander’s vision thus calls for a new kind of architecture that is deeply rooted in the realities of life, sensitive to the subtleties of human experience, and committed to creating environments that support and enhance the wellbeing of all who inhabit and/see them.

7. Conclusion

Alexander’s critique of modern architecture is not only a call for reform within the architectural discipline but also a blueprint for rethinking urban management. His concept of living structure, when applied to urban design, offers a path toward cities that are not only functional but also deeply resonant with the human experience. Urban managers and planners can draw on these principles to create sustainable, adaptable cities that nurture both their inhabitants and the environment. Modernist architecture’s emphasis on cold, machine-like efficiency, standardized forms, and a top-down approach, often neglects the fundamental human need for connection, warmth, and harmony. It is driven by a pursuit of innovation for its own sake, resulting in spaces that are abstract, minimalist, and detached from the lives of those who inhabit them. While such an approach is often technically advanced, it frequently sacrifices the organic richness and contextual sensitivity that are essential for creating environments in which people truly feel at home.

In stark contrast, Alexander’s vision of architecture is one that is deeply human-centered, rooted in the creation of living structures that resonate with the natural and social rhythms of life. Alexandrian architecture does not prioritize form over function, nor does it treat aesthetics as a mere afterthought. Instead, it seeks a harmonious balance where form and function are inseparable, and where beauty emerges naturally from the context and purpose of the design. This approach emphasizes the maintenance of harmony across scales, from the smallest detail to the overall form, ensuring that every aspect of the built environment contributes to a sense of belonging and vitality.

Alexandrian architecture reclaims the role of architecture as a means of enhancing the human experience. It challenges us to move beyond the sterile, mythological narratives of modernism and to embrace a more organic, knowledge-based approach that is integrated with nature and sensitive to the complexities of human life. Alexander’s insights offer a transformative vision for the future of architecture that is more attuned to the needs of people and also more in harmony with the world around us. By embracing these principles, we can create spaces that are functional and aesthetically pleasing, but also deeply enriching and lifeaffirming, setting the stage for a built environment that truly reflects the essence of what it means to be human.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Bin Jiang: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The author declares that he has no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgement

This paper is a reprint of the original paper (Jiang 2024). The paper was prepared with the support of ChatGPT-4; however, the author takes full responsibility for any errors or oversights.

The author gratefully acknowledges the Christopher Alexander & Center for Environmental Structure Archive for providing the images in Figs. 1 and 2, with special thanks to Maggie Alexander. Appreciation is also extended to Qianxiang Yao and Huan Qian for their help in creating Figs. 3 and 4. Special thanks to Professors ShihKung Lai and Chaosu Li for their insightful comments, which greatly contributed to improving the paper. The paper was supported by the Startup Fund of The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) (G0101000142), the City-University Joint Fund of the Science and Technology Project of Guangzhou (P00285), and Guangdong Provincial Key Lab of Integrated Communication, Sensing and Internet of Things (2023B1212010007).

References

Alexander, C. (1979). The timeless way of building. New York: Oxford University Press.

Alexander, C. (2002). Our new architecture and the many world cultures: An open letter to classicist and traditional architects. https:// www.livingneighborhoods.org/ library/many-world-cultures.pdf.

Alexander, C. (2002-2005). The Nature of order: An Essay on the Art of Building and the Nature of the universe, center for environmental structure. Berkeley: CA, 2005.

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., & Angel, S. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. London and New York: Routledge.

Curl, J. S. (2018). Making dystopia: The strange rise and survival of architectural barbarism. London: Oxford University Press.

Descartes, R. (1644, 1983). Principles of philosophy. Dordrecht: Reidel. Diamant, M. (2008). New traditional architecture & urbanism. https://newtrad.org/.

Gabriel, R. P., & Quillien, J. (2019). A search for beauty/A struggle with complexity: Christopher Alexander. Urban Science, 3(2), 64.

Jencks, C. (2002). The new paradigm in architecture: The language of post-modernism. London: Yale University Press.

Jiang, B. (2019). Living structure down to earth and up to heaven: Christopher Alexander. Urban Science, 3(3), 96.

Jiang B. (2024), The status quo of architecture and its impact on urban management: Christopher Alexander’s insights, Journal of Urban Management, xx(x), xx-xx.

Jiang, B., & de Rijke, C. (2023). Living images: A recursive approach to computing the structural beauty of images or the livingness of space. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 113(6), 1329–1347.

Jiang, B., & Huang, J. (2021). A new approach to detecting and designing living structure of urban environments. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 88,1–10.

Le, Corbusier. (1923). Towards a new architecture. London: Butterworth Architecture.

Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 207–230.

Mehaffy, M. W. (2007a). Notes on the genesis of wholes: Christopher Alexander and his continuing influence. Urban Design International, 12,41–49.

Mehaffy, M. W. (2007b). On the nature of order: An interview with christopher alexander. Urban Design International, 12,51–57.

Millais, M. (2017). Le corbusier, the dishonest architect. Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Salingaros, N. A. (2020). Connecting to the world: Christopher Alexander’s tool for human-centered design. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6(4), 455–481.

Venturi, R. (1966). Complexity and contradiction in architecture. New York: The Museum of Modern Art.

Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and reality: An essay in cosmology. New York: Free Press.