. . . and Architecture and . . .

 

I enjoyed a lengthy conversation over coffee this weekend with John Webster, AIA, one of my former coworkers at Robertson/Sherwood/Architects. We met to catch up, discuss how things are going at the firm, and what I’ve been up to during the first few months of my life in retirement. John will be director-elect for the Eugene Section of AIA Oregon as of January 2025, so another of the topics on our agenda was how the organization might better serve its members.
 
John suggested that I should consider submitting a proposal for an education session at AIA25 in Boston (albeit the deadline for submitting one just passed on October 28). My reaction was to ask, “what could I present that anyone would possibly find interesting or useful?” John answered by saying that I was underselling myself, that by virtue of my experience I have insights of value to share. In particular, he said he admired my ability to draw connections between architecture and the broader context within which it exists and within which architects work.
 
I admit to being fascinated by those connections. I have written with some regularity about an assortment of subjects or fields and how they relate to architecture. These include the following blog entries:

• Architecture and the Human Condition
• Philosophy and the Metaphysics of Architecture
• Morality and Architecture
• Architecture and the Culture Wars
• Monarchy and Architecture
• Automobiles and Architecture
• Taiko and Architecture
• Sculpture and Architecture
• Airplanes and Architecture

The common use of the conjunction “and” in their respective titles is not a coincidence. I purposely try to broaden and add depth to my understanding of architecture by drawing such connections, even as some may seem incongruent or at best tangential upon first blush. A consistent goal of mine has been to construct a narrative about architecture’s multifaceted nature, to explore it holistically and from as many perspectives as possible in the pursuit of greater truths.
 
I have long wanted to believe there is an objective and all-encompassing formula or theory underlying the production of architecture—essentially an architectural “theory of everything.” I want to find a recipe for (in the words of philosopher Ken Wilber) a “radical wholeness.” Perhaps Christopher Alexander has come closest to achieving this goal. He was notable for articulating the “patterns of life” necessary to creating a sense of well-being and connection to the natural world in the places where we live and work. I do generally subscribe to Alexander’s vision of a living world and his notions of order and wholeness in design. Nikos Salingaros is another thinker I know of who believes elemental rules exist that govern generative patterns linking architectural and urban forms to human sensibilities. Whether expressed as patterns or generative rules, it is the importance of understanding the connections between elements within and without a design that stands out. Fundamentally, architecture is intertwined with systems thinking.
 
The world is unimaginably complex. Systems thinking emphasizes viewing systems as wholes rather than merely the sum of their parts. Such an outlook—which is imperative if we are to adequately tackle the immense challenges confronting our species—acknowledges the existence of adaptive processes that evolve and change over time. In architectural terms this means recognizing the interconnectedness of various systems, whether natural or made by humans, so that architects can design buildings that are harmonious with their surroundings and more resilient and adaptable to changing conditions.
 
Many consider architecture to be a discrete field of study. To the credit of the profession, architects tend to think otherwise. This comes as a default condition, as architects are trained to see the big picture and most often charged with responsibility for organizing and managing the overall production of a suitable response to a given design problem. Architects are the generalists, while others on the design team are necessarily more narrowly focused and ensconced within the silos of their respective disciplines. Architects innately seek connections with and inspiration from the greater context of human dwelling and life on this planet.

 
John’s encouragement to share my perspective reinforced my belief that architecture thrives in the connections it fosters—with other fields, with society, and within ourselves as practitioners. It’s these connections that give architecture its richness and relevance, shaping it as a lens through which we interpret our world. Being timid, I’m reluctant to share my explorations of these intersections as a conference speaker. I will, however, continue to do so here on my blog. I look forward as well to future discussions with John about architecture, work in the office I’ve left behind, and life in its many dimensions.