Christopher Alexander was a philosopher of the environment. He is known as an architect, but his work encompassed mathematics, sociology, planning and construction. I think he identified and explained what makes good places, and his work inspires me.


Nothing is too good for the poor

#

Dorothy Day writes this about the early days of the Catholic Worker:

As fast as we gave things away people brought more. We gave away blankets to needy families, started our first house of hospitality and people gathered together what blankets we needed. We gave away food and more food came in. I can remember a haunch of venison from the Canadian Northwest, a can of oysters from Maryland, a container of honey from Illinois. Even now it comes in, a salmon from Seattle, flown across the continent; nothing is too good for the poor.

https://catholicworker.org/633-html/

It reminds me of an architectural project by Christopher Alexander, a homeless shelter in San Jose:

https://www.patternlanguage.com/projects/julian.html

It’s not the utilitarian dormitory you might expect. It is carefully designed, with a pleasant courtyard, high-ceilinged dining hall and subtle ornamentation. This might just be a result of consulting with people who might actually live in it:

To understand Christopher Alexander’s ideas about architecture, and to understand the man himself, it helps to know something about the Julian Street Inn–a shelter for the homeless in San Jose. Alexander designed the shelter in 1990, and he still drives down from his Berkeley home to talk with residents and collect their impressions of how the building works as a living space. Before even starting his design, in fact, he interviewed dozens of homeless people about what they wanted; they were, after all, going to live there.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-01-29-tm-25890-story.html

Most telling is the resident who said “This is the first time I’ve ever been in a building where absolutely everything is necessary.” This applies to ornamentation as much as its walls and ceiling. The way Alexander designed this space ensured that the courtyard wasn’t an aesthetic affectation, or a box-checking exercise to comply with site coverage ratio requirements. It was necessary for the purpose of a homeless shelter, and it was justified by properly fulfilling that need. The same must, maybe alarmingly, be concluded of the decorative column tops, the false hammerbeam truss of the dining hall, the tiles and fountain and trees.

Sydney Cohousing is trying to create a mixed-income housing development that includes those on middle and high incomes as well as those on low incomes and those in social housing:

https://crabmusket.net/2025/a-statement-of-intent-for-affordable-housing/

We’re doing this because living in urban Sydney is not too good for the poor. Being involved in designing a liveable, beautiful, functional place is not too good for the poor. Living side-by-side with the wealthy is not too good for the poor.


Site repair

#

A small fact about Frank Lloyd Wright’s famous Fallingwater house:

Wright designed the home above the waterfall: Kaufmann had expected it to be below the falls to afford a view of the cascades. It has been said that he was initially very upset with this change.

Contrast this to Chrisopher Alexander’s advice in A Pattern Language 104, “Site Repair”

Buildings must always be built on those parts of the land which are in the worst condition, not the best. This idea is indeed very simple. But it is the exact opposite of what usually happens; and it takes enormous will power to follow it through.

Building the house directly on the waterfall makes for a stunning piece of architecture, and the house’s fame was surely enhanced because of it. Maybe the Kaufmans came to enjoy the unexpected placement of the house.

But it’s a reason I sometimes don’t describe Christopher Alexander as an architect. While I enjoy his buildings, what is really special about them is their relationship with their surroundings and, in a campus setting, with each other. It was his planning, his integration not just of physical spaces but of people and systems, that made his work so valuable.

Consider the site and its buildings as a single living eco-system. Leave those areas that are the most precious, beautiful, comfortable, and healthy as they are, and build new structures in those parts of the site which are least pleasant now.

I wonder… in what other parts of life do we rush to consume beauty, rather than appreciate and nurture it?