diff --git a/ref/Salingaros-Chapter-11-Two-Languages-for-Architecture.md b/ref/Salingaros-Chapter-11-Two-Languages-for-Architecture.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6081046
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ref/Salingaros-Chapter-11-Two-Languages-for-Architecture.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1200 @@
+**NIKOS A. SALINGAROS**
+
+**A THEORY OF ARCHITECTURE, Sustasis press, 2006, 2014.**
+
+**Chapter 11 --- Two Languages for Architecture**
+
+*Design in architecture and urbanism is guided by two distinct
+complementary languages: a pattern language, and a form language. The
+pattern language contains rules for how human beings interact with built
+forms --- a pattern language codifies practical solutions developed over
+millennia, which are appropriate to local customs, society, and climate.
+A form language, on the other hand, consists of geometrical rules for
+putting matter together. It is visual and tectonic, traditionally
+arising from available materials and their human uses rather than from
+images. Different form languages correspond to different architectural
+traditions, or styles. The problem is that not all form languages are
+adaptive to human sensibilities. Those that are not adaptive can never
+connect to a pattern language. Every adaptive design method combines a
+pattern language with a viable form language, otherwise it inevitably
+creates alien environments.*
+
+1\. Pattern Language and Form Language.
+
+2\. Linking Pattern Language to Form Language.
+
+3\. Antipatterns Do Not Define a Language.
+
+4\. Analogies In Human Communication.
+
+5\. The Internal Structure of Form Languages.
+
+6\. The Transmission of a Style.
+
+7\. Minimal Complexity and Life Processes.
+
+8\. Architecture As a Living Process.
+
+9\. A New Architecture.
+
+*\* Seven Points That Guide Architectural Design.*
+
+10\. Conclusion.
+
+**1. Pattern language and form language**
+
+Architectural design is a highly complex undertaking. Heretofore, the
+processes at its base have not been made clear. There have been many
+attempts to clarify the design process, yet we still don't have a design
+method that can be used by students and novices to achieve practical,
+meaningful, nourishing, human results. In the absence of a design method
+and accompanying criteria for judging a design, things have become very
+subjective, and therefore what is built today appears to be influenced
+largely by fashion, forced tastes, and an individual's desire to garner
+attention through novel and sometimes shocking expressions.
+
+There exist invariant laws behind design in general, and architecture in
+particular. This Chapter puts forward a theory of architecture and
+urbanism based on two distinct languages: the *pattern language*, and
+the *form language*. The *pattern language* codifies the interaction of
+human beings with their environment, and determines how and where we
+naturally prefer to walk, sit, sleep, enter and move through a building,
+enjoy a room or open space, and feel at ease or not in our garden. The
+*pattern language* is a set of inherited tried-and-true solutions that
+optimize how the built environment promotes human life and sense of
+well-being. It combines geometry and social behavior patterns into a set
+of useful relationships, summarizing how built form can accommodate
+human activities. The *form language*, on the other hand, is strictly
+geometrical. It is defined by the elements of form as constituted by the
+floors, the walls, the ceiling, the partitions, and all the
+architectural components or articulations, which together represent a
+particular form and style of building.
+
+The importance of a *pattern language* for architecture was originally
+proposed by Christopher Alexander and his associates (Alexander *et
+al.*, 1977). A fairly general *pattern language* was discovered and
+presented by Alexander, who emphasized that, while many if not most of
+the patterns in his *pattern language* are indeed universal, there
+actually exist an infinite number of individual patterns that can be
+included in a *pattern language*. Each *pattern language* reflects
+different modes of life, customs, and behavior, and is appropriate to
+specific climates, geographies, cultures, and traditions. It is up to
+the designer/architect to extract specific non-universal patterns as
+needed, by examining the ways of life and tradition in a particular
+setting, and then to apply them to that situation (Salingaros, 2000).
+
+Living architecture is highly dependent on patterns, which shape
+buildings and spaces accordingly. A pattern is a set of relationships,
+which can be realized using different materials and geometries.
+Architects, however, confuse patterns with their representation, i.e.,
+what an arrangement looks like. The pattern is fundamentally human,
+whereas its physical realization (representation) can occur in myriads
+of slightly different ways. All those representations, some more and
+others less successful, are what we experience first-hand as the
+pattern. Even as structures get rebuilt so they may no longer represent
+a pattern, the pattern itself persists in human memory because it is
+independent of any particular representation. Patterns are not material,
+though we experience them with our senses. It is far more difficult to
+understand them intellectually, and almost impossible to grasp patterns
+from within a world-view that focuses exclusively on materials.
+
+One would think that designing an appropriate work environment would
+take precedence in our civilization, which is driven by commerce and
+industry. Yet that is hardly the case. A *pattern language* for work
+environments can be put together by examining the components of
+successful emotionally-comfortable work environments from different
+cultures and periods around the world (Alexander, 2004; Alexander *et
+al.*, 1977; Alexander *et al.*, 1987). A software developer today has
+many requirements in common with one of our distant ancestors looking
+for a comfortable place to sit and carve a bone or paint a piece of
+pottery. Being able to work in an emotionally-supportive environment
+boosts morale and productivity, and cuts down on workplace errors. For
+several decades, however, architects and interior designers have
+insisted on applying formal design rules to office environments. Such
+rules tend to give a standard compromise that satisfies almost none of
+the fundamental requirements for a good working environment. Their
+occupants usually characterize them as ranging from sterile to
+oppressive. Here is a fundamental disconnect between what architects
+imagine office space should look like, and the characteristics of the
+kind of space that users actually require to be productive in. This has
+not gone unnoticed by companies, which have undertaken their own
+*pattern language* development for office and work environments. A good
+*pattern language* can generate a personalized work environment at no
+extra cost. The trillion-dollar information and communications industry
+has embraced *pattern languages*, even as all of this extensive work
+remains outside today's architectural paradigm.
+
+Alexander also uses the term *form language* to describe the geometrical
+basis of an architectural expression (Alexander, 2004). It has been used
+in this context by other architects, for example Robert Stern (1988). A
+*form language* is a repertoire of forms and surface elements that can
+be combined to build any building, and so it represents more than just a
+superficial style. The *form language* depends on an inherited
+vocabulary of all the components used in the assembly of a building;
+rules for how they can be combined; and how different levels of scale
+can arise from the smaller components. It is a particular and practical
+conception of tectonic and surface geometry. One extremely successful
+*form language*, the "Classical Language", relies on a wide range of
+variations of the Classical style of building based on Greco-Roman
+ancestry (Stern, 1988).
+
+After centuries of Classical buildings, even with varied and successful
+adaptations to local climates, conditions, and uses, the Classical *form
+language* remains intact. Every traditional architecture has its own
+*form language*. It has evolved from many different influences of
+lifestyle, traditions, and practical concerns acting together to define
+the geometry that structures take as the most natural visual expressions
+of a particular culture. A *form language* is a set of evolved
+geometries on many different scales (i.e., ornamental, building, urban)
+that people of a particular culture identify with, and are comfortable
+with. It is highly dependent on traditional and local materials --- at
+least that was the case before the global introduction of nonspecific
+industrial materials. Along with many other changes that came along with
+the industrialization of the building process in the twentieth century,
+traditional *form languages* around the world have been lost.
+
+**2. Linking pattern language to form language**
+
+Here, a general theory of design is proposed, which supports many of the
+ideas of Alexander. Its essence is to link one *pattern language* to one
+*form language* so as to create an adaptive design method. The process
+may be summarized as follows, with details to be developed later in this
+Chapter.
+
+***Proposition: An adaptive design method arises out of a complementary
+pair consisting of a pattern language and a form language (see Figure
+11.1)**.*
+
+![11.1.JPG](media/image1.jpeg){width="2.2792049431321084in"
+height="2.6960050306211722in"}
+
+*Figure (11.1) A pattern language links to a form language: Pattern
+Language + Form Language = Adaptive Design Method.*
+
+I have indicated very briefly what a *pattern language* and a *form
+language* are; we still need to understand what an *adaptive design
+method* refers to. Out of many contemporary approaches to design, there
+are very few that result in structures and environments that are adapted
+both to physical human use, as well as to human sensibilities. In the
+past, the opposite was true. Human use is straightforward to understand:
+the physical dimensions and geometry have to accommodate the human body
+and its movement. By accommodating human sensibilities, I mean that
+environments should make human beings feel at ease; make them feel
+psychologically comfortable so that persons can carry out whatever
+functions they have to unselfconsciously, without being disturbed by the
+built environment in any way. This imposes a strong constraint on the
+design process to adapt to the many factors (both known and unknown)
+that will influence the user on many levels, including emotion. An
+adaptive design method should accommodate all these criteria, and this
+Chapter shows how this may be accomplished.
+
+A major source of confusion is that a design method could adapt to a
+style, but not to human use and sense of well-being. For example, it
+might adapt to (conform to) a set of predetermined geometrical
+prototypes, such as cubes and rectangular slabs. It takes on that
+particular *form language*. Minimalist modernism has a clearly-defined
+geometrical goal; i.e., its peculiar crystalline *form language*. It is
+successful on its own terms while at the same time ignoring, or not
+trying to accommodate, human patterns of use and the sensory response to
+built form and surface. This is the reason why minimalist modernism is
+incompatible with Alexander's *Pattern Language* (Alexander *et al.*,
+1977). In this Chapter, I will use the term "adaptive" to refer strictly
+to fitting the built environment to human beings, and not to abstract
+ideas or geometries.
+
+Since there exist an infinite number of patterns that can contribute to
+a *pattern language*, and an infinite number of *form languages*, there
+are of course an infinite number of adaptive design methods that combine
+two languages. Each adaptive design method is unique. The crucial point
+is that there are also an infinite number of design methods that act
+against adaptive design by producing structures which are not suitable
+to human needs. In the absence of an accepted term for design that
+ignores human needs, I will call such actions "non-adaptive design".
+
+Post-industrial design is not fundamentally adaptive. Its *form
+language* (or rather, set of related *form languages*) produces
+structures that are often hostile to human sensibilities. Studies by
+environmental psychologists have confirmed physiological reactions such
+as the onset of anxiety and signals of body stress in such environments
+(see Chapter 4). I want to look for systemic causes of this
+non-adaptivity. For reasons already discussed in Chapter 6, minimalism
+effectively precludes the use of patterns, both visual and Alexandrine
+patterns. That means that patterns of human activity cannot be
+accommodated within its design canon, thus characterizing it as
+non-adaptive. To proudly proclaim such a design method as "functional"
+is a mockery of the term, but it is admittedly a remarkably effective
+propaganda ploy that helps in its proliferation.
+
+Architectural *form languages* survive because they often acquire
+non-architectural meaning, after which they can ignore the need to be
+adaptive to human needs. In that case, a *form language* is no longer
+part of an adaptive design method; it becomes split from its
+complementary *pattern language*. Instead of expressing an adaptive
+tectonic culture, the *form language* becomes a set of visual symbols
+that operate under the guise of moral principles (and thus become
+emotionally loaded). Using that *form language* then becomes an end in
+itself, detached from human life. This architecture has little to do
+with buildings that accommodate human beings, or with tectonics, but is
+a statement using a formal visual vocabulary. Such an architecture has
+its own purpose, disguised with moral precepts that together define a
+completely different world-view for those who accept them.
+
+**3. Antipatterns do not define a language**
+
+In the theory of *pattern languages* --- actually developed more
+extensively in computer architecture than in buildings architecture ---
+the concept of "antipattern" plays a central role (Salingaros, 2000). An
+antipattern shows how to do the opposite of the required solution. An
+ineffective solution is often repeated because the same forces that gave
+rise to it in the first place recur in other similar situations.
+Assuming that the futility and counterproductive nature of such a
+solution is evident (which is not always the case), its occurrence can
+be studied to see what went wrong. Documenting an antipattern can save
+future designs from the same mistakes by identifying a problematic
+solution before it is adopted. The problem is that some antipatterns
+persist out of habit, causing a source of errors to become
+institutionalized. As discussed in Chapter 10, repeated use makes an
+error more acceptable, while institutional support from that point on
+makes it decreasingly likely that an error will ever be identified as
+such. Sometimes this knowledge can be helpful in order to avoid making
+the same mistake repeatedly, but only after the mistake has been
+recognized.
+
+However, knowing the antipattern does not automatically indicate the
+pattern, since the solution space is not one-dimensional (Salingaros,
+2000). If there were only two possible choices, knowing which one is
+wrong tells you which one is right. That simple situation almost never
+occurs in practice. More often, there are immeasurably more wrong than
+correct solutions. Doing the opposite of the antipattern will not give
+the pattern, precisely because there can be many different "opposites"
+going out in many different directions in the solution space.
+
+Antipatterns do not comprise a *pattern language*, just as a collection
+of mistakes do not comprise a coherent body of knowledge. It is
+therefore not appropriate to talk of a language of antipatterns, but
+simply a collection of antipatterns. Nevertheless, antipatterns could
+(and often do) substitute for, and displace a genuine *pattern
+language*, with very negative consequences. I have given rules for
+distinguishing between a true *pattern language* and a collection of
+antipatterns or non-language (Salingaros, 2000), based on their internal
+consistency and their connectivity to external patterns (see Figure
+11.2). As I discuss later in this Chapter, a true language --- be it
+*pattern language*, *form language*, or spoken language --- has a
+non-trivial internal complexity characterized by a high degree of
+connectivity.
+
+![11.2.JPG](media/image2.jpeg){width="1.8188746719160105in"
+height="2.679472878390201in"}
+
+*Figure (11.2) A true language possesses internal connectivity.*
+
+My present aim is to be able to discern whether a *pattern language* is
+genuine, so that it can be connected to a *form language* and thus
+define an adaptive design method. It is imperative not to be fooled by a
+collection of antipatterns, otherwise our resulting design process will
+be non-adaptive, even though this may not be known at the beginning of
+the process. We will eventually see it in the non-adaptivity of the
+results, at which time it will be too late to do anything about it
+(i.e., after an unnatural city such as EUR, Milton Keynes, or la Défense
+has been built).
+
+*Pattern languages* have evolved, and, as with all evolved systems, they
+have developed an extraordinary degree of organized complexity. It is
+not possible to understand all this complexity, let alone replace it by
+a design method based on deliberately simplified rules. And yet, that
+has been the basic assumption of twentieth-century architects: that we
+can simply replace all the evolved architectural solutions of the past
+with a few rules that someone has made up (and which don't even have the
+benefit of experimental verification). The organized complexity encoded
+in a *pattern language* is the end result of an evolutionary
+development, and cannot simply be achieved all at once. A refusal to
+apply traditional architectural solutions (patterns) leaves architects
+only with antipatterns, by default. Really bad mistakes (in
+architecture, politics, or software development) happen when several
+things go wrong together. Therefore, sets of related antipatterns tend
+to recur, each antipattern contributing to the failure of the situation.
+The fact that they seem to go together is mistaken for the grouping of
+cooperating patterns in a *pattern language*. Stubbornly re-using these
+antipatterns merely recycles the same mistakes over and over again.
+
+The analogous non-adaptive failure in a *form language* is more
+difficult to define. Most of that research is indeed very recent, and
+relies on mathematical properties (Alexander, 2004). A *form language*
+that adapts to human beings contains and codifies certain very specific
+geometrical properties such as fractal structure, connectivity,
+coherence, and scaling (as discussed in the previous Chapters of this
+book). Again, a *form language* that does not contain these mathematical
+properties is not a language at all, because it is too sparse to define
+a rich language of forms. I will call such a *form language* a
+"primitive" *form language*, or "non-language" (Figure 11.2). There
+exists a range of *form languages*, from non-languages, to primitive
+*form languages*, increasing in complexity of combinatoric expression up
+to genuine *form languages*.
+
+The linguistic analogy makes it difficult to understand why a primitive
+*form language* would ever survive. Why maintain a system in use that
+severely limits one's expression? The reason we do this is that every
+*form language* has extra-linguistic attributes that help in its
+proliferation. Once invented, the limited visual vocabulary of a
+primitive *form language* may be copied unthinkingly by more and more
+persons. Unlike a true language, which survives through its linguistic
+utility, a *form language* can survive strictly through its iconic
+properties (and not its linguistic ones). Indeed, constant repetition
+through visual copying is the key to its transmission, promotion, and
+acceptance by an increasing number of architects. Familiarity makes
+people overlook a *form language's* linguistic deficiencies. (One is
+reminded of the collapse of literacy in the Middle Ages, when individual
+letters were copied as "runes" and ascribed with magical meaning by
+people ignorant of their original linguistic function).
+
+An adaptive design method requires the union of a *pattern language*
+with a *form language* (Figure 11.1). If either the *pattern language*
+or the *form language* is flawed, then the design method will fail to
+create adaptive structures (see Figure 11.3). For example, high-rise
+towers set in vast open spaces satisfy neither a viable *form language*
+nor a *pattern language* --- they are iconic design failures that get
+repeated because architects make a lot of money building them. One may
+claim to employ a *pattern language* together with a primitive *form
+language* to create structures barely suitable for human habitation and
+use, such as contemporary buildings that try to use Alexandrine
+patterns. Those buildings may partially satisfy some functional
+patterns, but the more they stick exclusively to a minimalist or
+high-tech *form language*, they more they will feel dead and alienating,
+so that their users are uncomfortable.
+
+![11.3.JPG](media/image3.jpeg){width="2.351394356955381in"
+height="2.1219706911636047in"}
+
+*Figure (11.3) A non-language cannot link to a true language.*
+
+Two instances of partial success come to mind. In the mixed example of
+central Tel Aviv, an early modernist *form language* is tied to a
+traditional European urban *pattern language*, as laid out by Sir
+Patrick Geddes, with successful results. The buildings do not connect so
+much on an architectural scale, yet they do connect well on the urban
+scale to create a lively environment. Other illustrative examples with
+mixed success include dwellings built by alternative "counterculture"
+architects soon after the *Pattern Language* (Alexander *et al.*, 1977)
+appeared. They satisfy all the patterns, but they look somewhat chaotic
+and unbalanced --- far from satisfying Alexander's original intent of
+ordered geometrical coherence (Alexander, 2004). The reason is that
+their builders had no *form language* to draw upon. These buildings were
+built within a culture that did not wish to refer to any tradition, and
+did not have the capacity to create a new *form language* (the
+multicolored "psychedelic" art of that culture was never applied to
+architecture in a way that would help the geometry).
+
+In the opposite instance, one can use antipatterns together with a *form
+language* to damage both built and natural environments.
+Twentieth-century buildings were built using a distorted version of the
+Classical *form language* that are inhuman either because of scale,
+megalomania, or the desire to intimidate. They may look nice from a
+distance, but are hostile in actual use. This is a characteristic of
+Fascist architecture. Some modernist architects were also very fond of
+employing parts of a *form language* of rich, detailed materials, but to
+intentionally create alien forms. The surfaces are adaptive in these
+cases, but the geometry is not (sending a mixed message of attractive
+materials in a hostile setting). Another failed example is found in
+recent traditional-looking mansions isolated in American suburbia. They
+use a *form language* (that happens to be irrelevant to the site) but no
+urban *pattern language*, so those buildings remain disconnected. They
+have a great image, but no functionality on the urban scale. It is only
+the correct pairing of *pattern language* with *form language* that
+results in an adaptive design.
+
+The architecture of squatter settlements is an interesting case of
+genuinely adaptive application. Those slum dwellers use a *form
+language* that is determined by available scrap materials to build their
+own houses. Residents are preoccupied with basic survival, and have no
+wish to copy elements of a *form language* that was generated outside
+their immediate circumstances. There are simply no resources available
+to make an architectural "statement", although ornament and surface
+decoration appear on the most modest structures because they are felt to
+be essential. The human need to make a building adapt through form,
+surface, and ornament is innate. Everyday people who own and build their
+own homes definitely apply a *pattern language* (albeit unknowingly)
+because they want their dwellings to be as comfortable as possible. Here
+we have an adaptive design method, which, were it not for the miserable
+conditions of life represented by the overcrowded slums of the world, is
+an excellent example for architecture schools to study.
+
+As the above examples make clear, an adaptive design method provides the
+means of creation, but not the product. It gives one the framework and
+tools for creative expression. It still requires a talented architect or
+sensitive non-architect to use the language to design a building.
+Working with a complete, richly-expressive language makes that task
+immeasurably easier. Great architects can use an existing *form
+language* in an innovative manner to create new architectural
+expressions, or they can invent their own *form language*. (A *pattern
+language*, however, cannot be invented: it has to be discovered). A
+primitive *form language* severely reduces architectural expression.
+With a flawed *form language*, new or old, even the greatest architect
+has trouble making something useful and adaptive.
+
+**4. Analogies in human communication**
+
+Two complementary languages --- *pattern language* and *form language*
+--- are necessary for the process of adaptive architectural design. I
+can think of a parallel for this in pairing two entirely distinct types
+of language to enable human communication. Spoken language is used
+together with nonverbal emotional cues. These independent channels
+usually interact when one is speaking face-to-face with another person,
+and even on the telephone. Nonverbal communication gives a message of
+friendliness, ease of interaction, emotional comfort, or hostility
+independently of what the spoken language is communicating. Nonverbal
+cues are the basis of a host of messages that are often more important
+than verbal content.
+
+Human beings developed verbal and nonverbal modes of communication, and
+need both. Nonverbal cues carry through in telephone conversations
+because one can hear emotional signals encoded in the speaker's tone of
+voice and inflections. This is obviously not as effective as speaking in
+front of one-another. A sequence of decreasing information content
+corresponds to the gradual loss of the nonverbal language, and is
+represented by regressing from face-to-face meeting, to videoconference,
+to telephone, to handwritten letter, to e-mail, to typed memorandum. And
+yet, the actual text could be the same. This loss of expressivity is
+appreciated by the business world, where the value of serious
+communication is reflected in the price (in money, time, and
+inconvenience) that busy executives are willing to pay to arrange
+face-to-face negotiations.
+
+As both lovers and fighters know very well, one can rely almost entirely
+on nonverbal language for rapid communication in certain situations.
+Indeed, in those situations, one can communicate affections or "read"
+cues without knowing the spoken language of the other party at all. It
+is also sometimes the case that verbal language is used to decoy the
+true feelings and intentions of the parties involved. Amateurs cannot
+disguise their emotional language and so betray their true intentions.
+Accomplished liars, on the other hand, lie on all informational levels
+simultaneously: tone of voice, facial expressions, hand gestures, etc.
+Psychopaths and hardened criminals learn to control their nonverbal cues
+so that the (contrived) emotional message supports what they communicate
+through verbal language, and thus succeed in deceiving their victims.
+
+Here we are interested in building things rather than communicating a
+verbal message. Still, as the linguistic analogy makes clear, a building
+or urban setting conveys a wealth of information to human beings, and
+those signals influence the structures' eventual use. The built
+environment communicates complex messages on many different levels. An
+architect may naively expect that his or her design communicates a
+specific message in the most obvious aspects of its form, materials, and
+surfaces. The built structure may communicate something else altogether:
+a mixed, much more complex message, or the message could be strongly
+negative. The architect might offer a verbal explanation of the
+building's supposed message that totally contradicts what the structure
+is actually communicating in a sensory, visceral manner. Unfortunately,
+respected critics believe an architect's misleading words and ignore
+their own sensory responses to a building, which leads to cognitive
+dissonance for the public.
+
+It is therefore imperative that we become aware that several different
+design languages are actively contributing to the overall effect on
+users. The language of building is necessary to express the building as
+form, to implement and embody thoughts and needs about space and use.
+The present model of two languages --- a *pattern language* and a *form
+language* --- is a simplification of what is a more complex phenomenon,
+yet it is a necessary first step to understanding the design process.
+
+In addition to serving as a language for expressing architectural form,
+a *form language* communicates the state of mind of a society, or at
+least that of its ruling power elite. Corporate and totalitarian
+architecture looks and feels aloof; often faceless. The sensitive
+architectural historian can "read" messages such as power and authority,
+or, alternatively, compassion and respect for the individual in an
+architectural *form language*. However, such architectural messages are
+often disguised by propaganda, also expressed in architectural terms
+(Chapter 10). We are told by the architectural press that an obviously
+hostile building whose form deliberately creates alarm is marvelous
+because it is "innovative", thus deliberately confusing its
+architectural message.
+
+**5. The internal structure of form languages**
+
+All human spoken languages are contained in a general "meta-language",
+which has a grammatical or syntactical structure common to all known
+languages (Maynard-Smith & Szathmáry, 1999). Human languages, even in
+the most technologically primitive cultures known, are not themselves
+"primitive". Independently of their technological achievements, all
+groups of human beings have developed a richly complex spoken language.
+Differences arise in specificities, in the breadth of vocabulary for
+concepts important to that culture, and in their transition to a written
+language, but those do not affect the general richness of the language.
+
+This point is easy to explain from the mathematics of communication. In
+order to describe and communicate complex human activities and
+interactions, a spoken language itself has to have an extraordinary
+capacity for encoding complexity. A natural language is an
+externalization of the complexity of human thought, and has evolved
+along with the human mind. Even an isolated, technologically primitive
+tribe has developed complex activities and concepts over millennia, and
+these are comparable in information content to the complex activities of
+an urban dweller in the most advanced industrialized nations. For this
+reason, both sets of people require, and have developed, their own
+richly complex spoken languages.
+
+An artificial primitive language, on the other hand, would not be
+sufficient for verbal communication. It would consist of, say, six words
+such as: yes, no, hot, cold, eat, drink (Figure 11.2). It is a primitive
+language that an old model of computer would understand, or a person
+stranded among others who spoke a different language. In this example of
+a non-speaker amidst people speaking another language, however, he or
+she will rapidly pick up the host language, facilitated by innate
+meta-linguistic structures that define that person's own native
+language.
+
+What we conclude from the study of spoken and written languages is that,
+whereas each language may appear totally distinct on the surface, its
+level of complexity is equally high. Every language's internal structure
+has to obey general principles that are common to all languages. A
+primitive language or non-language, by contrast, is characterized by the
+reduction or absence of such internal complexity and structure. The
+complexity of human thought sets a rather high threshold for the
+complexity that any language has to be able to express through
+combinatoric groupings. It has been proposed that the transition from a
+primitive language to a real language corresponds to the evolutionary
+transition from the language of apes (and people brought up in
+linguistic deprivation) to human language (Maynard-Smith & Szathmáry,
+1999).
+
+Turning now to architecture, a viable *form language* is also
+characterized by its high degree of internal complexity. Furthermore,
+the complexity of different *form languages* has to be comparable,
+because each *form language* shares a commonality with other *form
+languages* on a general meta-linguistic level (see Figure 11.4). A
+primitive *form language* severely limits architectonic expression to
+crude or inarticulate statements. So, while each *form language* may be
+distinct in its components, it is not really a complete *form language*
+unless it possesses a complex internal structure. The exact details of
+this structure must necessarily parallel the internal structure of any
+other fully-developed language, and in particular, that of a *pattern
+language* (Salingaros, 2000). Roughly, these properties can be described
+as combinatorial, connective, and hierarchical features, which we see in
+our own written and spoken language.
+
+![11.4.JPG](media/image4.jpeg){width="2.4803707349081363in"
+height="2.050614610673666in"}
+
+*Figure (11.4) Two viable form languages share common features.*
+
+This argument is borne out by the enormous number of distinct *form
+languages* developed independently by different peoples around the
+world. It is reasonable to claim that for each spoken language, there is
+also a *form language* that those people use to build and to shape their
+environment. The means of verbal expression and accumulated culture
+defining a literary tradition has a parallel in an ornamental tradition
+and material culture, which includes a *form language* that is an
+expression of inventiveness in geometry and tectonics. A traditional
+*form language* has generated buildings the same way a spoken language
+has generated stories and poems, and these express a culture's
+complexity equally. The *form language* is stored in collective memory
+and recorded in physical materials, and is older than writing. Each
+traditional *form language* is distinct, yet possesses a comparably high
+degree of organized complexity in terms of visual vocabulary and
+combinatoric possibilities. Erasing a *form language* erases the culture
+that created it. It is no different than erasing a culture's literature,
+or its musical heritage.
+
+It is only in recent years that the mathematical sophistication of
+traditional *form languages* has begun to be documented. Mathematicians
+and ethnologists are doing this work, while the architectural
+establishment continues to ignore indigenous building cultures and the
+human value of what they represent. For example, traditional building
+and urban geometry in sub-Saharan Africa is now revealed to be
+essentially fractal, thus revising our customary (and totally erroneous)
+conception of those cultures as mathematically under-developed ---
+fractals were re-discovered in the West only very recently. Loosely (and
+deprecatingly) classed together as "vernacular architectures", this vast
+body of diverse and complex styles, geometries, and ways of
+understanding space and structure shames the poverty of contemporary
+architectural styles. Traditional form languages are rich, complete, and
+technically (not industrially) advanced. In terms of richness and
+underlying substance, which are crucially important to life,
+contemporary *form languages* promoted by the Western architectural
+design magazines would seem to represent an evolutionary regression.
+
+*Form languages* comprise evolved systems of human geometric expression.
+Separate from preserving traditional *form languages* for their
+informational and cultural value, the inevitable evolution of *form
+languages* makes possible entirely innovative architectural expressions.
+Such an evolution is possible only if a *form language* retains the high
+level of its internal complexity. Traditional *form languages* around
+the world were dismissed as "primitive" by Western colonial and economic
+powers, and were replaced by variants of Neo-Classical or Beaux-Arts
+*form languages*. Cultural colonialism in architecture comes about by
+destroying languages that are thousands of years old, as an affirmation
+of superiority and power.
+
+Even so, colonial architecture had been complex enough to begin adapting
+to local *pattern languages*, and thus to evolve adaptively towards the
+local vernacular. Many older colonial buildings are now treasured, and
+are included in a country's cultural heritage. When the West turned with
+vehemence against its own traditional *form languages*, replacing them
+with an impoverished set of primitive *form languages*, colonial
+architecture was itself eventually replaced by non-adaptive
+"International Style" buildings. Worse of all, those people whose *form
+language* (and culture) had been erased were caught up in the same
+deception (that this was necessary for economic progress and
+prosperity), so they embraced the same industrial "look" after political
+independence.
+
+**6. The transmission of a style**
+
+A *form language* governs the built form in all its expressions:
+geometry, composition, structure, materials, surfaces, etc. When we
+reduce all of this to simply an image, we call it an architectural
+"style". I can now use the model of this Chapter to discuss and explain
+some significant events in architectural history. To begin with, we are
+faced with a serious contradiction. Why do some design styles
+proliferate even though they are poorly adapted to human use and
+sensibilities? (Such styles or design methods could be deficient because
+they lack either the *pattern language*, or the *form language*, or
+both). Even worse, it appears that the most damaging, least adaptive
+styles actually proliferate with the greatest ease.
+
+The answer is frightening in its implications for our civilization. The
+most basic, primitive *form languages* spread the fastest in society
+(see Chapter 10). That is simply because they encode (carry with them) a
+minimum of information. The "style" as an informational unit that can be
+transmitted among human minds in a population carries over better when
+it is simplest. Flat sheer surfaces, transparent glass walls, pilotis,
+shiny "industrial" materials such as polished steel, etc. define a
+simplistic visual style, which offers an easily recognizable catchy
+image. These images are simple because they are the homogeneous products
+of synthetic materials. Never mind that the components of this primitive
+*form language* do not define a true *form language*; the public accepts
+them because of their visual simplicity encouraged by support from
+respected authorities, i.e., star architects and critics (Chapter 10).
+
+People traditionally developed and preserved adaptive design methods,
+each containing a *pattern language* and a *form language*. An adaptive
+design method was conceived as a whole, without splitting it into its
+two distinct linguistic components. Indeed, it was itself part of
+culture and religion, which together formed a complex body of inherited
+knowledge and practices. The theoretical separation of design from
+culture is useful for analysis, but does not correspond to the practical
+reality of several millennia of human existence. Actual separation,
+however, did occur in the post-industrial age. Adaptive design split
+from culture (which had earlier split from religion), then the *form
+language* split from the *pattern language*. Architects shed off
+influence from tried-and-true solutions in order to seek individual
+expressions.
+
+Detached as it was for the first time from a much larger complex system,
+a *form language* could evolve and propagate as an independent entity.
+This released it from traditional constraints, while at the same time
+giving a *form language* unprecedented channels and mechanisms for
+transmission. We know of biological entities that split from more
+complex organisms so as to propagate freely and with enormous success:
+they are the viruses.
+
+I wish to draw an analogy with the replication of viruses. Extending the
+notion of image propagation further, we can look to recent events where
+biological terrorists use viruses. Because of its nature, the virus can
+exist in an inert, easily-transmittable form such as a powder. This is
+possible because a virus is a biologically simple structure with very
+low informational overhead. We know how the spread of a virus can be
+accelerated, as part of the arsenal of biological terrorists. First,
+disguise the pathogen in seemingly attractive substances, so as to have
+the victims consume it voluntarily. This corresponds to the promise that
+architecture and planning relying on primitive *form languages* solve
+social problems and liberate oppressed classes (Chapter 10). The people
+readily accept that. Second, artificially spread samples of the virus in
+as many places as possible so that the maximum number of persons will
+become infected. In the propagation of architectural images, the media
+play a key role, showing and praising carefully selected structures and
+urban projects (and ignoring everything else) (Chapter 10). Our
+architectural schools and press have also done a very effective job of
+promoting primitive *form languages* while unwittingly suppressing true
+*form languages*.
+
+Someone who has been raised in the twentieth century and has been taught
+through association that "beautiful" objects have no hierarchical
+organization will then apply this rule subconsciously to design a
+building or a city. Even though people might find such environments
+intellectually acceptable, they can never overcome the negative
+sensations that such an architecture brings into play. The reason behind
+this typology can be traced back to artistic and design trends in the
+1920s. Design in art and architecture overturned all established rules
+of treating three-dimensional forms and two-dimensional images. *Form
+languages* that people had developed as part of their culture and
+civilization were no longer valued or respected. Concepts such as
+hierarchical scaling were inadvertently eliminated from design. They had
+never been written down; they exist encoded in nature and as examples in
+all traditional art and architecture. The new artificial objects:
+paintings, sculptures, and buildings influenced the way we think. They
+served as mental templates for conceptualization.
+
+Why did this occur only at the beginning of the twentieth century and
+not before? I believe that it had to do with radical social changes
+spurred by population pressure and political oppression so that for the
+first time, many people saw a chance of radical social improvement
+through technology. They were willing to sacrifice adaptive design in
+exchange for the (false) promise of a better future offered by
+industrialization (Chapter 10). Prior to that, people on all
+socioeconomic levels shaped their environment as far as they could to
+provide physical comfort and emotional well-being.
+
+Another contributing factor was the creation of a new communications
+network formed by the convergence of telephone, telegraph, newspapers,
+magazines, and film. The new media tied the world together as never
+before, yet also made possible the rapid proliferation of advertising
+and political propaganda. The spread of modernism, combining visually
+simple images with the promise of a new utopian world, could never have
+occurred were it not for the new media (Chapter 10). Advertising created
+the desire for industrial products that we didn't really need. Just as
+in the case of internet computer viruses, which could not exist before
+the internet, primitive architectural *form languages* could spread only
+through the first architectural picture magazines. At the same time,
+advertising favors the transmission of simplistic messages, slogans,
+images, and ideas.
+
+As a result of its tremendous power to shape people's minds, advertising
+quickly transformed from a medium for transmitting commercial
+information to an instrument of social change and control. Its first
+target was cultural traditions that blocked the consumption of inferior
+new industrial products. These inhibitions were overcome by making
+individuals ashamed of their instinctive preferences, labeling them as
+"backward", and thereby opening up the public to market influence. Thus,
+*form languages* that threatened the supremacy of the post-industrial
+aesthetic of glass, steel, and concrete slabs were stigmatized by the
+architectural critics. This style based on a specific industrial "look"
+could not be sold to the world until traditional *form languages* were
+eliminated. The way the built environment looked anywhere in the world
+would henceforth be controlled by the advertising media; all traditional
+*form languages* condemned to extinction in the interest of Western
+industrial and ideological dominance.
+
+**7. Minimal complexity and life processes**
+
+An excursion into biology is helpful here. There is a direct analogy
+between architecture and living processes. In examining how life arises,
+the Physicist Freeman Dyson proposes that two distinct processes
+characterize all living forms: metabolism, and replication (Dyson,
+1999). Metabolism involves the physical interaction of an organism with
+its environment in a way that portions of the environment --- i.e.,
+nutrients --- enter and are processed chemically by the organism. There
+is an interpenetration between the organism and the environment which
+maintains the functions of the organism via a chemical engine.
+
+The other component of life, replication, is the distinguishing
+characteristic of forms that survive through copies. Although an
+organism needs pieces of the environment as raw material to build a copy
+of itself, the replicative process is fundamentally distinct from
+metabolism. Replication is directly dependent upon coding the organism's
+structure into a template (DNA), so that replication is theoretically
+tied to information storage rather than to interaction with the
+environment around it.
+
+Perhaps the most important distinction between the two components of
+living structure is their independence. This is better discussed in
+terms of artificial life, as for example in entities generated by, and
+residing in a computer. It is possible to create the analogue of a
+metabolizing entity in the sense that it moves around on the screen and
+is nourished by devouring other nearby entities. It does not, however,
+have to reproduce. If one has played with the computer game "Sim City",
+then one imagines how an internally complex entity can survive
+indefinitely, and even grow in complexity as long as necessary
+"nutrients" are inputted. It can carry on an existence independent of
+other complex entities --- it only needs simple supplies.
+
+On the other hand, it is also possible to create a computer virus whose
+sole function is to replicate. Such an entity does not metabolize --- it
+is simply a minimal piece of code (either computer, or genetic) that
+uses the internal machinery of a far more complex entity in order to
+make copies of itself. A pure replicator lacks the ability to
+metabolize, and thus cannot carry out an independent existence --- it is
+entirely dependent on more complex entities for its continued survival.
+Without them, it lies dormant as an inanimate, disconnected piece of
+information (i.e., a crystal). It comes to life --- in the sense of
+getting ready to replicate --- only after it enters the living
+environment of a host's body. This is the reason why biological viruses
+are considered not to be really "alive", but to somehow occupy the
+interface between inanimate crystals and living forms.
+
+Therefore, despite architects' concerns about style and adaptation, they
+missed an essential point that links the two. The high threshold for
+organized visual complexity in traditional architecture (seen in all
+evolved cultures) played a decisive role, by helping to maintain
+adaptation in architecture. When humankind decided to abandon this
+complexity threshold (under utopian promises of a better future through
+industrialization), we opened the door to minimalist *form languages*
+that had unbeatable transmission properties. Humankind had always
+preserved adaptive design methods --- in which the *pattern language*
+guaranteed a high complexity for the complementary *form language* ---
+as whole (i.e., complete) culturally transmittable systems. By dropping
+*pattern languages* from the design methods in use, the *form language*
+could then be simplified as much as anyone wished, which is where we
+find ourselves today.
+
+**8. Architecture as a living process**
+
+The above concepts from biology and computer science can be applied to
+architecture to set up metabolic/genetic analogies. This is essential
+for understanding design as a "living process" that accommodates and
+coexists with human beings. I identify the metabolic (interactive)
+aspect of living structure with the *pattern language*. After all, a
+*pattern language* dictates how built form interacts with human
+activities, which is the defining characteristic of a useful, adaptive
+structure. A building is perceived as functionally "alive" when it
+accommodates human functions in a positive and nurturing manner. The
+essentials of biological metabolism: interpenetration, nourishment, and
+repair have their direct analogue in a *pattern language*. Buildings
+shelter and contain people, who in turn build them and maintain them.
+Changes affected during repair enhance the adaptivity of the original
+design.
+
+Forms, spaces, and surfaces can also nourish people psychologically by
+promoting a sense of well-being. This geometrical/visual aspect is to a
+large part responsible for supporting human activities, though the
+effect is much more subtle and is thus all too often ignored.
+(Architectural theorists have dismissed this component of architecture
+outright, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge psychological and medical
+results on the effects of environments). The way something is built and
+the way it looks (i.e., its *form language*) have a major impact in
+whether humans feel comfortable or not inside and around such a
+building. *Form language* affects human response directly. A building
+that is built in a way that its visual appearance discourages or hinders
+human activity can be said to be effectively "dead", since no-one wants
+to use it (see Chapter 4).
+
+Replication of a building style does not depend upon whether it is
+useful or not, but on its *form language*. The *form language* is
+therefore its genetic component (see Figure 11.5). A building replicates
+if for some reason (logical or otherwise) an architect decides to use
+the same design for another similar building somewhere else. We naively
+imagine that this copying is due to a building's success in
+accommodating human beings and their activities, but that is not
+necessarily the case. A building replicates only because its *form
+language* is used to build another building, and this decision is
+independent of the original building's success in terms of its human
+component. The principal factor behind architectural replication is the
+ease of copying a particular *form language* (which becomes an
+unbeatable advantage when dealing with a primitive *form language*). The
+analogy of a building as a living being is useful in predicting positive
+and negative effects on its users.
+
+![11.5.JPG](media/image5.jpeg){width="2.4366130796150482in"
+height="2.0031550743657043in"}
+
+*Figure (11.5) Forms/patterns correspond to genetic/metabolic
+structures.*
+
+Other factors that influence the success of a particular *form language*
+include sociopolitical forces that condemn one style while promoting
+another style; the physical presence of numerous buildings in a
+particular style around us makes it easy for that style to be copied by
+everybody; the virtual presence of a particular style promoted in terms
+of pervasive visual images currently fashionable in the media; etc.
+Obviously, techniques of advertising and proselytizing can promote a
+primitive *form language* and spread it in the environment, after which
+its dominance and familiarity guarantee further spread.
+
+To their credit, early modernist architects criticized the fact that
+many traditional *form languages* were not used to work with, but were
+being copied in the most superficial stylistic manner. For example,
+columns are supposed to be made originally out of tree trunks, but not
+out of hollow material. Falsifying a stone surface by means of paint
+looks ridiculous up close and when the paint starts to peel. Formica
+looks cheap and feels unpleasant to the touch. In recent years, people
+use plastic or painted metal siding that has the superficial appearance
+and texture of wooden planks. All of these falsifications are in fact a
+testament to the persistence of traditional *form languages*, but
+undermine and devalue the meaning of the original *form language*.
+Falsified materials falsify the *form language*. Unfortunately, the
+early discussion on the "honesty" of materials quickly took a wrong
+turn, and turned into an unquestioning support and promotion of
+industrial materials.
+
+If the *form language* is too idiosyncratic, then the building, even
+though it may be perfectly adapted to its uses, will not likely be used
+as a model for another building. This helps to explain why certain very
+successful buildings were never used as typological prototypes. For
+example, Art Nouveau buildings did not take off like modernist buildings
+did --- simply because their *form language* is not as easily copyable.
+This is in part because their mathematically sophisticated *form
+language* could not compete with the *form languages* of early modernism
+(Chapter 10). Of the many competing *form languages* (including several
+related ones loosely defining modernism) in existence in the early
+twentieth century, the most simplistic ones had better survival
+qualities. To use a literary metaphor, if Art Nouveau were a written
+language, then it is perfectly suited for poetry, but less well-suited
+for more mundane prose like a shopping list or a computer software
+manual.
+
+That said, poetry does nourish the human soul, which is the reason why
+all human societies use their language to compose poems. It is often the
+presence of emotionally-engaging poetry that helps to make everyday
+tasks bearable and even pleasant. Such is the effect of Hector Guimard's
+entrances to the Paris Metro stations (1900-1904), which provide a brief
+moment of architectural poetry as one enters or exits from the
+underground subway. For many people, they epitomize the dream of Paris.
+They were ruthlessly destroyed up to the 1960s (because they didn't
+conform to the drab minimalist aesthetic designated as orthodox by the
+architectural establishment). The French government finally realized
+that, in the eyes of the rest of the world, Paris would be
+architecturally impoverished without those characteristically Art
+Nouveau structures.
+
+Other components of human expression are also codified in a traditional
+*form language*: dark passions, archaic qualities and wildness, ranging
+all the way to an almost savage intensity. These emotions are latent in
+the human soul, and thus find their geometrical and ornamental analogues
+in a particular culture's *form language*. Life itself is written in a
+passionate language. This is a far cry from the insipid homogenization
+of post-industrial architectural expression. In recent years, however,
+violence against architectural form (and human sensibilities) has become
+fashionable, but this trend must be strongly distinguished from what I
+am talking about here. Normal individuals never confuse intensity of
+feeling with actual violence, only psychopaths do so: those are driven
+to derive sensual pleasure and satisfaction from sadistic acts of
+destruction. A *form language* expresses optimist and creativity, never
+nihilism.
+
+A society that is forbidden to express life and sensuality in a visual
+and tectonic medium turns out of frustration to perverse expressions of
+negativity, such as death and violence. There is no silencing the human
+spirit and its creative manifestations in material form; one can only
+redirect its modes of expression into negative channels. When we cannot
+express joy and wonder at the universe (because those who control
+cultural expression have a monopoly on the language), we seek out its
+opposite. The primitive and increasingly nihilistic *form languages* of
+contemporary architecture do speak to us directly, even though their
+message is not what their architects claim it to be. That's the reason
+for so much empty theorizing in the architectural press: it's an effort
+to disguise a fundamentally negative message.
+
+Since a *form language* is one-half of the complementary pair *pattern
+language + form language* that comprises an adaptive design method, a
+*form language* must tie in seamlessly to a *pattern language*. Here is
+where the crucial distinction is made between effective and ineffective
+*form languages*, as far as human use is concerned. A primitive *form
+language* can be enormously successful at replicating, but be totally
+unsuited for human needs. The reason is that it cannot encode enough
+complex information to generate structures that actively engage humans
+in a positive way. *Form languages* that can be used adaptively have to
+join mathematically with a *pattern language*, and the join is possible
+only if the two languages share a comparable and compatible internal
+structure (Figure 11.1).
+
+The process of joining two languages does not appear to have a
+linguistic parallel. We are used to translating from one language into
+another, but here I am referring to the creation of an entity (a
+building) that requires the cooperation of two distinct types of
+languages. Perhaps the best analogy is found in music. In a Song (say,
+where a poem is set to music), Opera, Oratorio, or Scripture presented
+in a musical setting, sung text is married to music, thus combining two
+linguistic expressions. The most glorious examples succeed in both
+dimensions: literary as well as musical, and thereby transcend the
+capabilities of each language alone. If religious text is used, it adds
+a third, spiritual dimension.
+
+Two abstract languages can interface only if they both share similar
+structural characteristics (i.e., syntactical and linguistic).
+Otherwise, they cannot be conceived as complementary. One of these
+common characteristics is a hierarchical internal structure, while
+another is an internal combinatorial structure. Just with these two
+requirements as a criterion, we can exclude some styles as lacking the
+fundamental basis of a *form language* that can join a *pattern
+language*. Many modernist buildings are simply too plain in their
+vocabulary of forms, and therefore lack hierarchical coherence (see
+Chapter 3). Those that are more complex evidently have a greater range
+of visual expression, and thus offer a greater chance for adaptivity.
+
+At the other extreme, the deconstructivist style tells you how to take
+forms apart, not how to put them together. Deconstruction has generated
+its own primitive (hence easily-copyable) *form language*, consisting of
+diagonal slashes, jagged lines, shiny high-tech materials, cantilevered
+shapes, concrete and glass walls, acute angles, etc. This comprises a
+large vocabulary of forms representing disordered visual complexity, but
+it all lacks linguistic connectivity. There is no system for
+synthesizing deconstructivist elements into coherent structures.
+Deconstruction started out in the field of linguistics, with the stated
+intention of disrupting the communication process (Salingaros, 2004).
+Its intent from the very beginning was to sabotage language, thus making
+it nihilistic. It is no wonder, then, that its architectural *form
+language* is incapable of generating coherent form. It can only give
+rise to fragmented structures whose purpose is to deny coherent
+expression. Architectural deconstruction has commandeered systems and
+resources (media, government, and academic support; architectural prizes
+and commissions) in its bid to displace other *form languages*. Its mode
+of propagation is therefore directly analogous to biological
+competition, where one organism tries to exterminate another.
+
+It follows that it is hopeless to try to satisfy a *pattern language*
+using the *form language* of either minimalism, or deconstructivism.
+Perhaps because of this perceived impossibility, Alexander's *pattern
+language* (Alexander *et al.*, 1977) has been all but ignored by the
+mainstream architectural profession. A major misunderstanding of the
+value of patterns has led to the neglect of *pattern languages*, because
+they were (correctly) seen to possess far more complex combinatoric
+properties than contemporary *form languages* in use. The inability of a
+primitive *form language* to join a *pattern language* should have
+alerted architects to the deficiencies of that *form language*. What
+happened instead is that the primitive *form language* was retained,
+while the possibility of an adaptive design method (that combines a
+*form language* with a *pattern language*) was abandoned. This decision,
+crucial for the evolution of architecture, was influenced by forces
+embedded very deeply in a culture shaped by advertising and ideology. A
+society that runs largely on images values an iconic architecture above
+all else, and is loath to re-attach it to something as abstract as a
+*pattern language*. Adaptation to human needs is incompatible with an
+image-driven architecture.
+
+Architects have misinterpreted Alexander's *Pattern Language* as too
+restrictive. They felt that their creative imagination should not be
+fettered in trying to satisfy Alexandrine patterns. Perhaps they see
+that the most innovative part of their design clashes with patterns, and
+they certainly don't want to sacrifice it. I, on the other hand, propose
+an architecture that is ruthlessly adaptive to human uses and
+sensibilities: architecture that connects us to the world. If an
+architectural "statement" makes people uncomfortable, it should not be
+built. Review boards should not commission it, and juries should not
+award it an architectural prize. The *pattern language* provides a
+"reality check" for an architect's imagination. An architect that can
+create nurturing environments can adapt an innovative idea to patterns;
+it takes a secure and courageous one to do so.
+
+**9. A new architecture**
+
+*Form language* (actually, fairly primitive versions of a *form
+language*) is what today's architects focus on, almost to the exclusion
+of other design constituents. Architects are visually-oriented people,
+used to thinking in visual terms. I believe that the present discussion
+can help bring innovation through a new understanding of the complexity
+of the design process. It is possible to list several insights as points
+that can be used in practice.
+
+***Table 11.1. Seven Points that Guide Architectural Design.***
+
+1\. Great architecture can, and does result from following a
+tried-and-true *form language* (in combination with a *pattern
+language*).
+
+2\. The more informationally-rich a *form language* is, the more adapted
+the architecture could become to the human condition.
+
+3\. Innovative architects have also developed their own *form language*
+(e.g., Louis Sullivan, Antoni Gaudí, Victor Horta, Frank Lloyd Wright,
+Erich Mendelsohn, etc.).
+
+4\. Non-adaptive architecture results from following a primitive *form
+language*, which does not have enough complexity to allow either
+richness of architectural expression, or adaptivity to human uses and
+sensibilities.
+
+5\. Genuine architectural and urban adaptivity can follow only from
+applying a *pattern language* that codifies human movement and
+practices.
+
+6\. An adaptive design method marries *form language* with *pattern
+language*.
+
+7\. If a *form language* is too primitive so that it cannot be married
+to a *pattern language*, then that *form language* should not be used.
+
+It is possible to begin implementing a program for a new architecture,
+after we understand architectural forces as explained in this and
+previous Chapters. These ideas and suggestions should appear as totally
+practical to present-day architectural students, who have been trained
+in an architecture of increasing complexity through the use of computer
+visualization. They have an advantage over the previous generation of
+architects, who were taught through empty images and forms. Architecture
+depends on distinct complex languages. The basis for real, adaptive, and
+sustainable architecture, which was outlined here, is not currently
+taught in architecture schools, simply because the scientific results
+are very recent. Education is very easy to change, by replacing the
+teaching in leading institutions with a curriculum on how to design
+buildings and cities for human use and having an increased sense of
+well-being.
+
+A priority for any architectural project today is to formulate or
+rediscover a viable *form language*, otherwise one is forced to copy the
+sterile styles around us. No shape or visual vocabulary should be used
+just because some alleged authority said that it is "honest",
+"liberating", or "fashionable". An architect who seeks an honest
+expression in his or her architecture has to employ the nature of
+materials to help decide on the *form language*. Preference should be
+given to local indigenous building materials. One can also look to the
+pre-industrial past for examples of appropriate forms and geometries.
+The latest industrial materials will be used if they are useful in a
+particular setting, but not because of ideology. Most of what we build
+today relies on industrial materials, but these materials don't have to
+express a modernist *form language*. There is a potential richness to
+these materials that was not cultivated because of the dominance of the
+modernist aesthetic.
+
+An ornamental tradition often survives better in small-scale structure
+and surface design. This can be transferred from other visual
+expressions such an textiles or pottery back into architecture. Another
+source of forgotten clues to a lost *form language* may be found in
+regional historical furniture. This process of discovery should not be
+misinterpreted as superficial historicizing. The rest of the language
+must be invented by the architect, who needs to incorporate colors,
+forms, spaces, and ornaments according to the principles revealed in
+this book. The new *form language* should be richly expressive,
+individual, and distinct. Nothing should be complex for complexity's
+sake, nor should any forced simplicity be imposed.
+
+The new architecture will, not surprisingly, look a lot like traditional
+architecture (Krier, 1998). If it is successful in connecting to human
+beings, it will certainly elicit the same feelings of naturalness as
+those historical built regions still preserved around the world. Yet, as
+Léon Krier emphasizes, we can build today urban environments that are
+every bit as comfortable as the greatest examples built in the past. The
+widely disseminated opinion that we cannot reproduce the best qualities
+of the past for a multitude of reasons is only propaganda: Christopher
+Alexander (2004), Léon Krier (1998), and many other humanist architects
+have built new structures that are innovative, yet timeless in their
+human adaptation. Those buildings are also more sustainable than
+buildings that simply try to make an architectural "statement".
+
+These ideas are rapidly coming together with scientific support for a
+new architectural renaissance. We will see the inevitable turning away
+from the present architectural system of focusing on idiosyncratic
+expression, sooner or later, because of its irrelevance to human life.
+It is time to begin training the young architects who will build the
+future, and who will be asked to repair the wounds inflicted upon the
+built environment over the past several decades. In all probability, the
+demand will come from society itself. When that time comes, graduates of
+today's institutions who know how to use these principles will thus be
+more employable. Contemporary schools of architecture should be
+re-oriented to consider more traditional ideas helping innovation, in
+the way I have indicated here. This may well propel a re-structuring of
+architectural pedagogy that allows students to look beyond contemporary
+expressions for inspiration and knowledge. Young architects can once
+again be creating a sustainable and rich built environment.
+
+**10. Conclusion**
+
+This Chapter has presented a theory of design based on the combination
+of two types of language: a *pattern language*, and a *form language*.
+The *pattern language* encodes elements of human interaction with
+buildings, which are to be found throughout traditional architecture and
+urbanism. The *form language*, on the other hand, corresponds to
+whatever geometrical style the building or urban region has taken. In
+principle, there is enormous freedom to choose a *form language* for a
+new building today. Nevertheless, what is used in place of a *form
+language* in our times lacks the complexity and connectivity to define a
+true language. This often results in geometrically and informationally
+impoverished environments that are unsuitable or unpleasant for human
+use. Moreover, the adoption of an overly simplistic *form language*
+precludes the necessary cooperation with a *pattern language*, thus
+guaranteeing that human needs will never be satisfied via an adaptive
+architecture.
+
+Once these mechanisms at the basis of design are more widely known, it
+would appear reasonable that the world could again learn to build its
+cities in a way to accommodate human beings. Another factor, however,
+comes into play: a *form language*, once it is split from a
+complementary *pattern language*, spreads among the population of minds
+according to how easy it is to copy. The characteristics of a successful
+*form language* (successful in terms of being used for many buildings)
+are the opposite of those of a *form language* required for adaptive
+design. The fast-spreading one is too simplistic for human use, whereas
+the useful one capable of adaptation spreads too slowly to compete. We
+are fighting against a scientific phenomenon: adaptive design is complex
+and thus difficult to spread, whereas pathological design spreads very
+easily through the visual media. Thus, it is critically important that
+students and teachers learn to recognize this phenomenon as it is
+occurring.