Unfortunate idealism
Christopher Alexander’s building process, ‘the timeless way’, relies on a specific set of motivations for building. It’s not clear whether Christopher Alexander was aware of this requirement in the early days of his career. On a number of occasions he butted up against others without seemingly understanding their responses to his much more wholesome designs. As he developed his theory, his apparent understanding of their motivations grew, and he fought more actively against them. However, these motivations cannot be ignored or easily defeated within our current cultural situation.
The timeless way derives from practical, purposeful creation to satisfy a need. In some cases, that need can be a very well-defined sense of creation to inspire awe or depict dominance. In the times before the rentier classes became the controlling majority, the power to construct such edifices as cathedrals or castles was limited. They were traditionally constructed because familiarity with what they were and what they represented provided a significant part of their value. As the human population increased and the organisational structure adjusted towards personal ownership, the number of people able to command an army of builders increased. But, the reasons for their creation slipped away from ideological or physical security toward the vapid extreme of building a personal monument or leaving a signature of their power. Today’s castles are not armour or deterrents; they are elaborate garments.
The timeless way allowed a powerful entity to demand the best work of those aligned with its beliefs, to create without requiring detailed plans or a micro-managed command-and-control approach. Those who commissioned the building sought a group of like-minded souls. They would develop it together and agreed it was the right thing to create. This alone is a massive difference to modern construction. The difference is that now workers construct, and designers design. Workers are no longer invested in the outcome or morally aligned with the development—the natural result of working primarily for money, not pride, joy, or personal needs. You can see the difference when comparing these projects against self-builds or home improvement work.
Christopher Alexander needed people to be honest and not mean. Those without these qualities, and unwilling to try to understand, ruin the system. In the past, it was easier because there was little value in being dishonest about your work. Your reputation was crucial. Nowadays, clients spend less time deliberating over a builder’s reputation, regularly ranking purely based on how low they bid on a contract. A builder who can cut costs on a bid will likely win it. If they can cut costs on materials and labour while building without introducing the potential for litigation at a later date (or even avoid it in the short term), then there is a strong incentive to do so. All this stems from how we reward and punish. There can still be pride in work, but people are often punished for doing the right thing and rewarded for only doing what is necessary to get the job done.
You see this effect everywhere, not just with physical construction. It’s not only engineers who are incentivised to cut costs and move on to the next contract; many other sectors are rewarded that way too. You only have to consider the food and catering industry to see a brilliant example of the power of profit-driven goals by how we have come to live in a contradiction where cheap fast food and expensive coffee can live side by side and target the same consumer.
When we fight against these negative feedback mechanisms, we can do amazing things. I’ve heard the success of Heathrow’s Terminal 5 was down to such an instance where the project was led well, and most importantly, the contracts were written and updated when necessary to better reward those who worked as a team. This eliminated the temptation to only do what was required. The huge project had some failures, but the construction was completed on time—an astounding feat given how inevitable overruns seem to be with large infrastructure projects.
In short, the timeless way of building only works when you want the best for the people who will use the building. It’s successful when the developer is interested in the outcome for its inhabitants. It works for projects to make your own home or when an honourable person of great integrity sits in a position of power during construction. But when there is a disconnect, the Alexandrian way of building is constantly stressed and under attack by the forces of fiscal or ego motivation.