1.2.11-A. Salama-pp114-131

8/12/2019 1.2.11-A. Salama-pp114-131

1/18

NIKOS A SALINGAROS: A NEW VITRUVIUS FOR 21stCENTURYARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM?

Ashraf M. Salama

Archnet-IJ AR, International J ournal of Architectural Research

Copyright 2007 Archnet-IJAR, Volume 1 - Issue 2 - J uly 2007 - (114-131)

114

AbstractThis a rt ic le ad op ts the prem ise tha t the wo rk of

Nikos A. Salingaros marks a true beginning for

seriou sly reg a ining w ha t c ultures and soc ieties

ha ve lost throug hout the yea rs through the wo rk of

m an y a rc hi tects, urba nists, an d de c ision m akers.

It explores the three m ono grap hs he h as writ ten

and v iew s them as a new De Arch itec tu ra fo r

21stc entury archi tec ture and urba nism . The a rt ic le

reflec ts on V itruvius s De A rchitec tura a nd she d s l ig hton selected evolut ionary aspects of archi tecture

and the ant i -v i t ruv ian prac t i ces tha t con t inued

for hund red s of ye a rs, but inten sif ied ov er the la st

century. It reviews the att i tudes of anti-vi truvian

a rc hi tec ts tha t co ntrib uted to seve re soc io-c ultura l

and co ntex tua l prob lema t ic s. The v iews ad op ted

in th is art ic le a re b ased o n the c onvic t ion tha t the

theo ries a nd writ ing s of Sa ling aros are a reac t ion a nd

a c onsc ious po sit ive respo nse to these prac t ic es,

a nd tha t these the or ies wi ll inv igorate the c rea t ion o fhuma ne and livab le env ironm ents.

KeywordsNikos Salingaros; Vitruvius; Christopher Alexander;

deconstructivism; anti-architecture; urban structure.

NOTE to A c a de m ics, Architec tural Stude nts,

Critics, an d Prac t itioners

This a rt ic le sho uld n ot b e see n in a simila r lig ht to

the typica l prac t ic e of c rit ic s. It is by no m ea ns,

and shou ld not be in te rp re ted a s, propa ga nda or

a p ub lic ity ca mp aign for a new theo ry. It simp ly

ref lects on the w ork of a sc ient ist , a m a them at ic ian,

an a rch i tec tu ra l theor ist and a c onc erned w or ld

c i t izen who fel t the need for archi tects to startshaping a bet ter wor ld. Recogniz ing the current

sta tus of a rchitec ture, it view s Sa ling a ros w ork as a

grea t e nde avo r tha t is no t b ound to a t ime lim i ta t ion

or a ge og rap h ica l loc a t ion .

Preamble: From Vitruvius to Salingaros

Frank Granger and Morris Hicky Morgans

translations of Vitruvius De Archi tectura tellus much about the essence of architectureas a cultural artifact, and as one the mostimportant professional and educationaldisciplines. De Archi tec tura offers insights intoissues on what constitutes architec ture, howarchitecture should be practiced, and thebodies of knowledge required for a responsiveand knowledgeable architect. After several

centuries of many failures to address these

Reviews and Trigger Articles

8/12/2019 1.2.11-A. Salama-pp114-131

2/18

Archnet-IJ AR, International J ournal of Architectural Research - Volume 1 - Issue 2 - J uly 2007

Nikos A. Sa ling a ros: A Ne w Vitruvius fo r 21st Arc hitec ture a nd Urb a nism ?

ASHRAFM.

SALAMA

115

issues and to face the practical realities ofarchitec ture in satisfying the basic needs

of people, Nikos A. Salingaros shines onthe international architectural community.He brings to light his own theories in threemanuscripts that I believe will shape the futureof world architecture.

The three pieces of Salingaros titled Anti-Architecture and Deconstruction, Principlesof Urban Structure, and A Theory ofArchitecture mark an important milestone in

the history of architectural theories, where truescientific thinking coupled with the integrationof natural and social sciences put architectureagain into focus, and answer a series of criticalquestions. While offering harsh criticism onconventional practices, the manuscripts offerscience-based theories and arguments, anaspect that remains missing from old andrecent debates on architectural theory and

criticism. It is my conviction that they willeventually penetrate the thick skin of traditionalacademics and the inherited practice norms ofprofessionals, which are not equipped to facethe complexity of architecture and urbanism inthe 21stcentury.

On Vitruvius

While little is known about Vitruvius and his life,examining some of the available manuscripts(Granger, 1931; Morgan, 1960) reveals thathe was born around 80 BC and died in 25BC. He was a Roman architect as well asan engineer, admired and studied Greekphilosophy and science in depth while gainingan intensive experience in architectureand the technology of the time throughout

the course of his professional career. Vitruvius

was also a writer and can be seen as the firsttheorist of architecture in Western history. There

were other earlier or contemporary knownand unknown theorists in other cultures. In thisrespect, one would differentiate betweenVitruvius and others by considering their workas Volume 0 theories while that of Vitruviusas Volume 1 theory, i.e. a recorded writtentheory.

According to Granger (1931), Marcus VitruviusPollio or Vitruvius was one of those appointed

to oversee the design and manufacturing ofthe imperial artillery or military engines of theRoman Empire at that time. It is said that he wasthe architect of at least one unit of buildings forAugustus, Ga ius J ulius Caesar Octavianus. Afew years before he died, Vitruvius completedhis manuscript De Archi tec turawhich, after itsre-discovery in the 15th century, became oneof the most influential writings to be studied by

architec ts from the early Renaissance until thepresent.

On De Architectura

Vitruvius adds to the tradition of Greek theoriesand practices the results of his own experience.De Archi tec turacovers almost every aspect ofRoman architecture. The books break down

as follows: 1. Town planning, architecture ingeneral, and the qualifications required of anarchitec t; 2. Building materials; 3. Temples andthe orders of architecture; 4. c on t inua t ion o fb oo k 3; 5. Civil buildings; 6. Domestic buildings;7. Pavements and decorative plasterwork;8. Water supplies; 9. Sciences influencingarchitecture geometry, mensuration,astronomy etc.; and 10. Use and construction

of machines (Granger, 1931; Smith, 2004).

8/12/2019 1.2.11-A. Salama-pp114-131

3/18



ASHRAFM.

SALAMA

116

Roman architects were significantly differentfrom their modern counterparts, acting as

engineers, architects, artists, and craftsmencombined. Vitruvius was very mucha professional of this type, a fact reflectedin De Archi tec tura. He covers a wide varietyof subjects that he saw as touching onarchitecture. This included many aspectswhich would seem invisible to modern eyes,ranging from mathematics and astronomy,to meteorology and medicine. In the Romanconception, architecture needed to takeinto account everything that touched on thephysical and intellectual life of a human beingand his surroundings (Rowland & Howe, 1999).

In Vitruvius De Archi tectura, known incontemporary history as Vitruvius: Ten Bookson Architecture, architecture was defined andtheorized. However, it was re-stated in the 17thcentury by Sir William Wotton (Morgan, 1960).

In theory, three complex criteria/phenomenaconstitute the definition of architecture: 1)Convenience/Commodity; 2) Durability/Firmness; and 3) Beauty/Delight. This meansthat a building or a portion of a designed/builtenvironment must meet three standards toqualify as architecture. It must convenientlyserve the purpose for which it was designed,built, and inhabited; it must be structurally

sound; and it must be beautiful.

Each of these three criteria constitutes anumber of subordinate complex phenomena.For the purpose of simplifying these phenomenaone would venture the development of apreliminary definition of eac h. Commodity orconvenience expresses the functional aspectsof architecture, the way buildings househuman activities, how people live and how

societies operate in the physical environment,or simply the dialectic relationships between

people and their environments. Firmness ordurability on the other hand represents thetechnological aspects of architecture, since itis governed by the natural sciences, includingthe laws of physics, statics, and dynamics.Delight or beauty exemplifies the aestheticcomponent of architecture, and this is basedon the very fact that architecture seeks toexpress ideal concepts of beauty that emergefrom symbols embedded in a particular culture.Notably, each of these phenomena has aninterdependent relationship with the other two(Salama, 1998).

On Anti-Vitruvian Practices

Throughout the recorded history ofarchitecture, the balance among thepreceding three criteria/phenomena and theirinterdependencies has been a continuouschallenge, and one can confidently arguethat they were never addressed in full. Thisis especially obvious when looking at howarchitecture has evolved as a profession and asa cultural product throughout the last century.Up to the modern era, architecture was andwas seen as a cultural index that took differentforms in different historical eras. These forms

resulted from the intersec tion of contextualparticularities of geography, economy, andsocio-political settings. However, architecturewas always concerned with producingindividua l works of art on individual sites, wheredesigning buildings or built environments wasintuitive. The design process relied heavily onthe experience, judgment, and talent of theindividual designer. While this approach to

architecture has in a few cases resulted

8/12/2019 1.2.11-A. Salama-pp114-131

4/18Archnet-IJ AR, International J ournal of Architectural Research - Volume 1 - Issue 2 - J uly 2007


ASHRAFM.

SALAMA

117

in some of the most enduring achievements,today architecture faces severe challenges

which threaten its traditional role that wasdominant in pre-modern times, namely sincebeginning of the 20thcentury.

Although architects of the ancient worldwere generally associated with the rich andpowerful, the king and royal institutes, theirwork had many merits that we still appreciatein recent times. With varying degrees ofsuccess it attempted to strike the balance

between the three criteria/phenomena ofarchitecture. Still, the poor and the middleclass were never addressed by architects. Onthat basis, one can argue that while there weremany excellent achievements in architecture,typical conventional practices throughout thepre-modern era were Anti-Vitruvian. Over thelast three decades however, a few positiveVitruvian-based attempts emerged here and

there around the world.

While having its roots in the beginning of the19th century, the Modern movement reachedthe first half of the 20th century under thegeneral title of International Style or ModernArchitecture, though it did not live up toits name. The basic premise of the Modernmovement was to integrate function, arts,

and crafts to form universal ideas within therequirements of technology. This by defaulthas led to the belief in certain principles thatinclude a rejection of ornament and historicalstyles as a source of architectural form(historicism), while replac ing this with a beliefin machine aesthetics. However, the literatureon architectural theories corroborates thatthe Modern movement failed to appreciatethe distinction between conceptual abstract

designs, the realities of buildings, and thecontext within which they are designed

and built. Throughout this last century, thecontinuous attempts to internationalize oruniversalize architecture have resulted in thesubtle destruction of traditional cultures, and Ibelieve many academics and theorists wouldagree on that (Salama, 1995).

The international Post-modern movement wasa direct challenge to many of the premisesupon which modern architecture was based.

It advocated efforts ranging from historicism(including historical revivalism and historiceclecticism) to schizophrenic approachesof collage and elitist architecture. Based onsome logical fundamentals and critical visions,it acknowledged the role of symbolism inarchitecture. It also regarded Modernism aslacking the premises to properly respond to theemotional and cultural needs of people while

simultaneously expressing economic, scientific,and technological givens of the time. Post-modernists acknowledged the taste codes ofthe public as a source of design, in the beliefthat such a practice would help their work tocommunicate with the users of architecture(Mitchell, 1993; Salama, 2002 & 2007). While thismight be seen as a good-intentioned practice,it trivialized the essence of architec ture that

eventually became very superficial. In thisrespect, the major weakness of Post-modernismlies in the fact that its disposition did not allowit to go far enough in its acknowledgmentand understanding of its context. It did notaddress the shortcomings implicit in modernistarchitectural practices, but rather, it tacitlyaccepted them.

Despite any good intentions that might have

8/12/2019 1.2.11-A. Salama-pp114-131

5/18

8/12/2019 1.2.11-A. Salama-pp114-131

6/18

Nik A S li A N Vit i f 21 t A hit t d U b i ?

8/12/2019 1.2.11-A. Salama-pp114-131



ASHRAFM.

SALAMA

120

egoist is paternalistic and his/her role is to createabstract forms based on subjective feelings,

whereas the pragmatist is entrepreneurial andhis/her role is to manipulate forms based onaccepting the values of others. In this context,one should emphasize her as star architectsnow include female architects (2). The anti-vitruvian practices and the attitudes of anti-vitruvian architects have contributed to severeenvironmental and social problems. The culturaland visual identities of different localities indifferent parts of the world are completely lostbecause of the role models they adopt, as wellas the naivety of the client groups who supportthem.

One shou ld c onc lude th is sec t ion b y the

fol low ing four w ond ers an d o ne w ish:

I wonder if anti-vitruvian architects are able todeal with different segments of societies otherthan serving the rich and only the rich.

I wonder if they have the ability to protectthe tangible built heritage within the intangiblecultural and soc ietal contexts.

I wonder if they can democratize designpractices and if they know how to involvepeople affected by design decisions in the

process of making those decisions. I wonder if they are able to deal withproblems and paradoxes associated withdifferent sub-cultures including the disabled,children, seniors, and the under-represented(Salama, 1999).

I wish I could see anti-vitruvian architectsable to solve a housing problem in a village or

in a dense urban region, or able to introduce

change in a poor community, or a squattersettlement. While anti-vitruvian architec ts

are immersing themselves in exploring newinnovations to foster their fame, two thirds ofthe worlds population lacks shelter or lives insubstandard houses (adapted from Salama2003).

On Salingaros

Reaching the global condition and the resulting

ills of anti-vitruvian world architecture andurbanism, many architec ts came to terms withthe facts of industry and economy, but typicallyat the cost of their ethical responsibilities asindependent professionals. The ethics of theindividual responsive architect or the small-scale architectural office were replaced by theethics of the large consulting firms or rea l-estatecompanies. As a conscious reaction to thiscondition, Nikos Salingaros work is emergingto offer new theories that if adopted, adapted,and practiced, will shape a better environmentfor the future. The question at this point is: Whois Nikos A. Salingaros?

Born in Perth, Australia of Greek parents,Nikos A. Salingaros is a mathematician andpolymath popular for his work in urban theory,architectural theory, complexity theory, and

design philosophy. Salingaros shares a harshcritical analysis of conventional modernarchitecture with the architect and computersoftware pioneer, Christopher Alexander, theprominent scholar and theorist. Salingaros,like Alexander, has proposed an alternativetheoretical approach to architecture andurbanism that is more adaptive to humanneeds and cultural aspirations, combining

rigorous scientific analyses with deep intuitive

Nikos A Sa ling a ros: A Ne w Vitruvius fo r 21st Arc hitec ture a nd Urb a nism ?

8/12/2019 1.2.11-A. Salama-pp114-131



ASHRAFM.

SALAMA

121

experience (Wikepedia, 2007). He hascollaborated with Alexander in the editing of

Alexanders latest work, The Nature of Order.Salingaros three manuscripts and numerousarticles have been published in, not onlythe mainstream conventional architecturalmagazines, but in responsive online and paper

journals as well.

Prior to shifting his attention to architectureand urbanism, Salingaros published substantiveresearch on Algebras, Mathematical Physics,

Electromagnetic Fields, and ThermonuclearFusion. Salingaros still teaches mathematics,and is Professor of Mathematics at theUniversity of Texas at San Antonio. He is also onthe Architecture faculties of universities in Italy,Mexico, and the Netherlands.

In 1995, Salingaros first publication onarchitecture marked the beginning of an

exciting new career, which quickly eclipsedhis earlier one. His papers on architectureand urbanism have been translated intoCatalan, Farsi, Finnish, French, German,Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and Swedish.He was awarded a grant by the Alfred P.Sloa n Fou nd a tion in 1997 for his pioneeringefforts in building a scientific understanding ofarchitecture and urbanism. He has appearedas a guest on Na tion a l Pub lic Ra d io, and hasbeen interviewed by several magazines. He isa champion of the New Urbanism, combiningit with new exigencies of the developingnetwork city. In an essay with J ames HowardKunstler, Salingaros predicted the end of theskyscraper era, which expanded his popularityworldwide (Salingaros Home Page, 2007).

Salingaros and Alexander

In the context of reflecting on the work ofSalingaros, one has to refer to the mutualand collegial relationship between him andChristopher Alexander. Both have contributedremarkable arguments and theories sinceAlexanders Notes of the Synthesis of Formin the 1960s to Salingaros A Theory ofArchitecture in the 2000s.

Salingaros acknowledges a debt to C hristopher

Alexander for encouraging him to devotehis energies to understanding architecturaland urban form. Indeed, it was Salingaroscollaboration with Alexander, in editingAlexanders four-volume book The Natureof Order, that precipitated Salingaros intoarchitectural research. He credits Alexander forthis inspiration: Working with him o n his b oo kThe Nature o f Orde r dur ing the tw enty ye a rs

p r io r to it s pub lic a t ion taug h t me muc h o f w ha tI know a bo u t arch i tec tu re a nd urba n ism. He

ha s ge nerously enc ourag ed m e ov er all these

yea rs. Mo re tha n that , he p rovide d a sol id p oint

o f sa nity in a n a rc h itec tura l wor ld d riven by

im a g es, fa shions, a nd op inions. My w ork ut i lizes

a nd expa nd s on his id ea s in m a ny w a ys. A fu ll

ap prec ia t ion o f the m ate r ia l p resen ted here

c an o n ly co me f rom rea d ing h is mo nume nta l

work.(Salingaros, 2006:25).

Alexander, in turn, gives Salingaros credit for hisoriginal ideas: In m y view , the sec ond pe rsonwho b ega n to exp lo re the deep c onnec t ion

be twe en sc ienc e a nd arch i tec tu re w as Nikos

Sa ling a ros, one of th e fo ur Ka ta rxis e d itors. He

had be en wo rk ing w ith me he lp ing m e ed it

m a teria l in The Na ture of O rde r, for yea rs, a nd

a t som e p oint in the m id -nine t ies I think

be ga n w rit ing pa pe rs loo k ing a t arch i tec tu ra l

Nikos A Sa ling a ros: A Ne w Vitruvius fo r 21stArc hitec ture a nd Urb a nism ?

8/12/2019 1.2.11-A. Salama-pp114-131


Nikos A. Sa ling a ros: A Ne w Vitruvius fo r 21 Arc hitec ture a nd Urb a nism ?

ASHRAFM.

SA

LAMA

122

p rob lem s in a sc ient i fic wa y. Then b y the sec ond

ha l f o f the n ine t ies he b eg an ma k ing imp or tan t

c ont r ib ut ions to the b uild ing of th is b rid ge ,

a nd to sc ient i fic explorat ions in a rc h itec ture

wh ich c onst itu ted a br id ge .(Alexander, 2004,Katarxis No. 3, online).

The fact that each is crediting the other insome form and out loudly is a rarity in recentacademic and professional practices. Today,many theorists, academics, and practitionersare claiming territory or ownership over

whatever they can. Another question here:what does this tell us? Simply, it tells us thatprofessional ethics are explicitly integrated inthe work of Salingaros.

From Vitruvius Triad to Salingaros Triad

Earlier I used the following terms: Commodity/C onve nienc e,Firmness/ Durability,Delight/

Beauty. However, there are many interpretationsin the literature expressing these threephenomena, and how they constitute a workof architec ture or a building. Some authors referto these phenomena as function, structure, andbeauty, while others still prefer to use the originalLatin terms Utilita s, Firm ita s, and Venustas.According to OGorman (1997), we may thinkof the Vitruvian components as the corners of

an equilateral triangle, or better still, the legs of atripod called architecture. No one leg can standalone; each is dependent upon the other two toform the work of architecture, and this fosters theearlier argument of this paper.

Many theorists argue (and rightly so) thatthis is an exquisite formulation; for all itsantiquity it remains a useful framework for theinitial thinking about architecture, and the

preliminary analysis of a building. However, onewould tend to believe that this was not enough.

The reason is that architects since the discoveryof De Archi tectura needed more elaboratearguments; this is perhaps in part one ofthe reasons why many architects and practicesbecame anti-vitruvian, and the results are reallyrepelling. They needed more clarification andinterpretation of phenomena that correspondto the changing nature of architecture and thesocieties it serves.

It would be very difficult in the 21st centuryto still think of the three criteria/phenomenaintroduced by Vitruvius as a panacea tothe ills of world architecture and the builtenvironment in general. This is especiallytrue in light of population growth, increasedurbanization, technological advancement,and the dramatic changes in the structure ofcontemporary soc ieties. Those major forces

are coupled with housing problems and thecontinuous emergence of squatter settlements,the deterioration of the built heritage, and theemergence of new building types and largestructures.

Undoubtedly, Vitruvius gave us the ABC ofarchitecture, but someone should havecontinued the alphabet of architectural

theories. It is my conviction that Nikos Salingarosoffers a new alphabet that corresponds tothe demands placed upon the profession bycontemporary societies. His work meets therequirements of architecture and urbanismin the 21st century. As a critic of modernist,postmodernist, and dec onstructivist stylesof building and thought, Salingaros triadis emerging to replace these styles witha humanistic architecture for the future. His

Nikos A Sa ling a ros: A Ne w Vitruvius fo r 21stArc hitec ture a nd Urb a nism ?123

8/12/2019 1.2.11-A. Salama-pp114-131


Nikos A. Sa ling a ros: A Ne w Vitruvius fo r 21 Arc hitec ture a nd Urb a nism ?

ASHRAFM.

SA

LAMA

123

work is seen by many as forging a crucialinterface between innovative ideas for a newarchitecture, and the timeless content oftraditional architectures (Salingaros HomePage, 2007). To some, and to eventually manyacademics and practitioners, Salingaros rolewill be the responsive theoretician whose aim isto reconnect humanity with so much that waslost over the past several decades.

Introducing a new alphabet, Salingaroshas written three manuscripts that can be

interpreted as forming the new triad. Theseare Anti-Architecture and Deconstruction(2004), Principles of Urban Structure (2005),and A Theory of Architecture (2006). Similarto that of Vitruvius, but differing in contentand comprehensiveness, the triad can beexplained in terms of how each manuscript andits underlying critica l theories lead to the next.Anti-Architecture and Deconstruction comes

on the top angle or corner of the equilateraltriangle, as it introduces critical analyses of20thcentury architecture, and offers a preludeto the successive theories. As one movesclockwise, the second manuscript Principlesof Urban Structure comes on the right cornerof the triangle as Salingaros theories areintroduced at the urban scale. Continuing tomove clockwise, one reaches the third angle

of the triangle where the latest manuscript, ATheory of Architecture comes to introducescientific and mathematics based theories onarchitecture. Moving clockwise again to thefirst angle in order not to forget the critica lanalyses, one thus keeps remembering the illsthat resulted from the anti-vitruvian architec tsand their practices, and the move continues(Figure 1).

I would agree that such a triad could change,as the future writings of Salingaros may evolvethe equilateral triangle into something else.However, at the present moment in thehistory of architectural theory, it is a triad andwill continue to be so until a new round ofSalingaros work emerges. The triad offers thefoundation for a completely new approach tothe built environment. As stated in SalingarosWebsite, his work d erive s rules that u nd erlie aliv ing a rc h itec ture These rules do not simplyclone great architectures of the past, but they

re-interpret them; they go against copying-pasting elements and symbols from the past, anaspect promoted by anti-vitruvian architectsand critics.

Two striking aspects are evident in Salingarostriad. They can both be classified underthe heading of integration. The first is anintegration of two different but complementary

types of knowledge in architecture. Thesecond is an integration of the two extremes ofarchitectural theory, the hard fac ts and the softvalues. It is believed that there are two types ofknowledge in architecture. The first comprisesknowledge resulting from research that seeksto understand the future through a betterunderstanding of the past research andreflection that explores accepted ideas. The

second comprises knowledge resulting fromresearch that probes new ideas, principles, andtheories which will shape the future researchthat develops new hypotheses and epistemics.While Anti-Architecture and Deconstructionfalls within the first type, Principles of UrbanStructure and A Theory of Architectureconstitute the second type.

Nikos A. Sa ling a ros: A Ne w Vitruvius fo r 21st Arc hitec ture a nd Urb a nism ?124

8/12/2019 1.2.11-A. Salama-pp114-131

11/18


g

ASHRAFM.

SA

LAMA

124

Some architectural scholars and thinkersmay argue that what we have accumulatedthroughout the years within the scope of

architectural theory are simply expressionsof ideas and experiences which haveconcomitantly been identified as theory.(Ozkan, 1999). While this argument is inpart valid, an architectural theory shouldaddress three components: the scientific, theartistic, and the professional, while the threecomponents should range from hard facts tosoft values. However, if a theory claims to be

scientific it has to search for the truth, if it claimsto be artistic it has to be original, and if it claims

to be professional it must be ethical and valid.Again, Salingaros triad incorporates thesecomponents into an objectively and logically

accepted philosophical system that is basedon critica l visions, scientific understandings,and well articulated arguments. Thesetwo characteristics of Salingaros triad are aconcomitant reason that his triad has generatedcontroversial debate in the architecturalmedia. Unlike mainstream architec tural theoriesdeveloped during the past century, Salingarostheories are verifiable because they stem from

mathematics and science.

Figure 1: Salingaros Triad: Deriving Rules that Underlie a Living Architecture.

Anti-Architecture and DeconstructionC ritical Analysis/C riticism of

20thCentury Architecture

A Theory of Architecture

Scientific & M athematicsBased Theories

Principles of Urban Structure

N ew Theories at theUrban Scale

From Urban to Architectural Scale

PreludeRemembering

Deriving Rulesthat Underlie

a Living


8/12/2019 1.2.11-A. Salama-pp114-131

12/18


ASHRAFM.

SA

LAMA

125

Anti-Architecture and Deconstruction

Anti-Architecture and Deconstruction is at

the top of the triad. The manuscript appears asif Salingaros was setting the stage for his futurewritings. He established the scene througha collection of twelve essays in the form of acompilation that critically analyzes evolutionaryaspects of modernism and post-Modernism,while heavily criticizing the resulting end-style ofthese two movements: Deconstructivism. Anti-Arch itec tu re and Dec onst ruc t ionencompasses

an interview with Christopher Alexander, andcontributions and comments from well-knownwriters and scholars including J ames StevensCurl, Michael Mehaffy, and Lucien Steil, amongothers.

The main argument of this manuscriptlies in Salingaros belief that architecturaldeconstruction is not a new thing. It has

started since the 1920s from the Bauhaus,the international style, and modernism, goingthrough new brutalism and late and postmodernism. Each of these ISMS is regardedas a cult that had tremendous negativeimpacts on they way in which we think aboutor approach architecture in pedagogy andpractice. Salingaros argues, and rightly so,that deconstructivists have disassoc iatedthemselves from the lessons derived from historyand precedents, while distancing themselvesfrom basic human needs and cultural contexts.

While many critical statements are made bySalingaros in different parts of the manuscript,one should note his criticism of the critics, thearticulate and fancy rhetoric and writings ofCharles J encks and Bernard Tschumi. In thisrespec t, in two important essays, Salingaros

made valid arguments where the manuscriptrefers to J encks as a phrase maker andstyle tracker. He points out that J encksunderstanding and use of scientific conceptsto justify and celebrate deconstructivistarchitecture is simply superficial (2). On theother hand, Bernard Tschumis two majorwritings titled The Manhattan Transcripts andArchitecture and Disjunction were closelyexamined by Salingaros. He concluded that

Tschumis work is a collection of meaninglessimages that resembles advertising and

a false claim of knowledge of mathematics inanalogizing it to architectural form.

The other ten essays offer eloquent andconvincing arguments against sucha destructive attitude of deconstructivismand deconstructivists. However, three ofthese should be highlighted. The essays titledDerrida Virus, Background Material for the

Derrida Virus, and Death, Life and Libeskindeloquently show how Derridas notion ofdeconstructivism became a dangerous viruswhich keep reproducing itself infinitely. Derrida,an Algerian-born French philosopher foundedsuch a notion in literary criticism, and describedit as a method for analyzing texts based on theidea that language is inherently unstable andshifting, and that the reader rather than author

is central in determining the meaning (Derrida,1973). While his work was heavily criticized byprominent linguists and philosophers includingNoam Chomsky, it found listening receptiveears in the architectural community, a typicalhabit of many name architects who run afterslogans and strange notions that help them tophilosophize and theorize in order to justify theirwork.


8/12/2019 1.2.11-A. Salama-pp114-131

13/18


ASHRAFM.

SA

LAMA

126

Metaphorically, the virus has killed almost allconnections to the past, to humanity, and tocontext. The resulting ills are manifested in manycities, but the trauma is well articulated in thework of Daniel Libeskind in the Ground ZeroProposal, the Seattle Public Library, and theBerlin Holocaust Museum. Salingaros shows howthe rhetoric surrounding the claims of Libeskindon the emotional experience of the GroundZero proposal are nothing but negative. Inthis respect, a reference needs to be madeto university campuses which are supposed

to convey constructive messages about thefuture of learning, research, and humanity; theyare calling deconstructivists to destruct theirlearning environments. This is clearly evident inthe work of Antoine Predock in the McNamaraAlumni Center of the University of Minnesota,and the work of Frank Gehrys Wiseman ArtMuseum of the same University. Notably, Gehryswork is invading many university campuses

including C ase Western Reserve Universitythrough its School of Business, and the Universityof Cincinnati through its Center for MolecularStudies. University campuses are intentionallyconveying deconstructive messages.

While the manuscript was criticized by a fewreaders for having some redundancy, thatissues and concepts introduced say the same

thing in several chapters, one should respondby arguing that in many instances, in orderfor a writer to make his message clear, it hasto be repeated, stated, elaborated, andarticulated in different contexts and in differentmanners. This is one of the most importantqualities of those who believe in their message.Undoubtedly, this manuscript is a voice of logicand reason against anti-architecture norms,and the destructive attitudes of their followers.

I would add my voice to other reviewers ofthis manuscript: that it must be a mandatoryreading in schools of architecture worldwide.Salingaros call for going against those attitudesand regaining our interest in solutions tohuman problems needs to be adopted. Themanuscripts thrust for re-associating ourselvesto the near and distant past depending onwho we are and the cultural context in whichwe operate deserves special attention byboth academics and prac titioners.

Principles of Urban Structure

The right angle of Salingaros triad is Principlesof Urban Structure. The manuscript movesbeyond criticism, and incorporates criticalanalyses into philosophica l interpretations.

The result is to form new visions through whichwe may understand the city as a mixture ofphenomena. A preliminary examination of

this manuscript reveals that it is based onthe view that a c ity with its physical, soc io-economic, institutional, and cultural presenceproduces and re-produces, transmits andrepresents much, if not all, of what counts aspolitics, knowledge, and culture. One shouldbe definite in this respect and argue that forthousands of years, many cities have been,among other things, centers of culture, politics,

and the arts. Therefore, the knowledge of whata city is and what it is that makes its buildings,neighborhoods, districts, streets, and the spaceswithin it alive needs to be subjected to newinterpretations and visionary arguments. This isthe essence of this manuscript. In this respec t,Salingaros argues that d i f ferent typ es of urba nsystem s ove rlap to b uild u p u rb a n c om p lexity

in a living c ity. This raises the ne ed for using

concep ts such as coherence , emergence ,


8/12/2019 1.2.11-A. Salama-pp114-131

14/18


ASHRAFM.

SA

LAMA in forma t ion, se l f-orga niza t ion a nd a d a p t iv ity .

(Salingaros, 2006).

Constituted in ten chapters, Principles of UrbanStructure accommodates a number of theoriesand discussions that Salingaros has developedsince the mid 1990s. It introduces the unifyingnotion of the network city to understand urbanphenomena as components of a complexsystem. As another Greek, ConstantineDoxiades, introduced the Science of HumanSettlements Ekistic s several decades back,

one tends to see this work as having a Greekorigin. Salingaros is describing a beginning of areal urban science that complements scientificapproaches to urbanism currently undertakenby several academics and scholars. However,as stated in the introduction of the manuscript,it examines the unproven principles adoptedfor many years, which were taken for granted.It calls for a fresh look on our needs to re-shape,

re-structure, revitalize, and repair cities basedon some proven logical understandings.

In the context of outlining this manuscriptas an integral part of Salingaros triad, it isimportant to cover selected crucial issues.It provides a different way of thinking aboutan urban area or a portion of a city. Overall,the theory is not about geometrical forms, it isabout activity nodes and the physical paths

that connec t them. It offers planning principlesbased on a mathematical understanding ofwhat generates the urban web. On that basis,Salingaros argues that the current system ofbreaking down neighborhoods has alreadyalienated and segregated communities, whileat the same increasing crime. He complementshis theory of the urban web by two other theoriesthat pertain to the relationship between urban

space and its information field, on one hand,and the distribution of sizes, on the other.

Based on information theory and the laws ofoptics, Salingaros concludes that successfulurban spaces are bounded by concavesurfaces. The spaces reinforce paths and thepaths are reinforced by the spaces. Insufficientinformation that people need to define spatialboundaries causes psychologica l discomfort. Interms of the distribution of sizes, and based onempirical research, a link is established between

certain ordering mechanisms inherent in thehuman mind and the designed environment.

This reflects the understanding that the designof an environment is not arbitrary, but shouldsatisfy a set of constraints. While this conclusionmay see to be revealing what is already known,the organization of mec hanisms underlyingdesign were developed by Salingaros in lightof several ana logies with complex systems in

biology, physics, and physiology.

The manuscript is dense in terms of introducingscience-based concepts, ideas, and visions,while linking them to the physical environment.On the one hand, a number of other ideas arepresented to address critical issues that pertainto complexity and urban coherence, such asconnecting the fractal city, and the role ofinformation architec ture and human intelligence

in shaping the urban environment. On the otherhand, the influence of Alexander is presentin Salingaros work. While Alexanders PatternLanguagehad and continues to have a greatimpact on the minds of many people, Salingarosinvestigates thePat tern Lang uag efurther, as twochapters are exclusively dedicated to root thepattern language into the soil of recent debateson architec ture and urbanism.


8/12/2019 1.2.11-A. Salama-pp114-131

15/18


ASHRAFM.

SA

LAMA A Theory of Architecture

This manuscript represents the third angle of the

Salingaros triad. While capitalizing on recentefforts to develop interpretations of socio-cultural phenomena by means of scientificmodels, it builds on the four-decades-long effortof C hristopher Alexander. While having his owntheories and distinct thinking for approachingand introducing issues, Salingaros refers inseveral chapters in one form or another to thework of Alexander, as he sees him as a mentor

and views his work as a source of inspiration.Those who read and study the work of Alexanderwould immediately realize this fact.

Preceded by a preface written by PrinceCharles, and a foreword by Kenneth MasdenII, A Theory of Architecture accommodatestwelve different but related chapters. Someof them were jointly written with other scholarsincluding Debora Tejada, Hing-Sing Yu, Michael

Mehaffy, and Terry Mikiten. Among a numberof aims Salingaros has identified for this work,two critical ones are noted. These are basedon my belief that they contribute to a newunderstanding of architecture, its theoreticalbase, its education, and its practice. As statedby Salingaros, these two aims are: Derivelaw s fo r how ma t te r c om es tog e ther to de f ine

b uild ings tha t g ive p lea sure to hum a n b eings,

and, Explain, using sc ient i fic a rgum en ts, wh yp eo ple d er ive p lea sure a nd sa t isfac t ion f rom

som e fo rms b ut no t from ot he rs.This is based onhis conviction that the architectural communityhas ignored for years logical thinking andempirical or experimental verification. Thus, thismanuscript, in Salingaros words, is developedto c orrect this condition.

A Theory of Architecture is in fact not aboutone theory, but several complementary onesthat together contribute to a new visionabout architecture. Concepts that pertain tocomplexity, emergence, and evidence-baseddesign, pattern languages, the fractal mind,geometrical fundamentalism, and memeencapsulation, while presented in differentchapters, are all integrated to shape sucha vision. Highlights on these concepts revealthe message of the manuscript. In addressingcomplexity, Salingaros uses a model of

organized complexity to estimate the degree oflife in a building and measures the organizationof visual information. In evidence-based design,he introduces the concept of adaptivity asa characteristic phenomenon of emergence.As a reaction to the fact that contemporaryarchitectural theory has degeneratedarchitecture into a narrow meaning byoversimplifying the relationship between spaces

and their meanings, he proposes a broaderdiscourse that involves evidence-based design,an aspect that is being addressed by responsivearchitects in creating healing, work, andlearning environments. Building on ChristopherAlexanders work, Salingaros incorporatesa pattern language and a form languageinto an adaptive design method. Geometricalfundamentalism is another concept coined and

explored by Michael Mehaffy and Salingarosto express the dominance of monolithic formsof modern architecture that led to a tunnelvision understanding of space.

This manuscript is of great value to architecturaleducators. It helps them correct some of themisconceptions inherited in architecturaleducation. These include the fact thateducators tend to present knowledge as a


8/12/2019 1.2.11-A. Salama-pp114-131

16/18


ASHRAFM.

SA

LAMA body of facts and theories and as a process

of scientific criticism. The processes that ledup to this product are always hidden andinternalized. Salingaros offers explanationsof how such processes occur, and uncoverstheir hidden qualities. Also, in pedagogy,knowledge is usually presented to students in aretrospective way where abstract and symbolicgeneralizations used to describe researchresults do not convey the feel of the behaviorof the phenomena they describe; the lateDonald Schon emphasized this view in 1988.

The term retrospec tive here means extensiveexhibition of the performance of the work of anarchitect over time. In essence, the analysis ofprecedents as part of the curriculum shouldbe introduced. Salingaros derives his conceptsand theories from precedents, historical orscientific. Rather than giving students ready-made interpretations about the work of stararchitects, Salingaros offers a deeper insight

into the understanding of the true essenceof architecture. This is a marvelous pieceand it should be a required reading in theorycourses introduced in both undergraduate andgraduate programs of architecture worldwide.

Epilogue or Prologue for 21st Architecture

and Urbanism

In ending this article, one tends to think of thisdiscussion not in terms of a conc lusion or anepilogue, but as a prologue for the future ofarchitecture and urbanism in the 21stcentury.Vitruvius triad was the beginning of thedictionary on architecture, while Salingarostriad completed that dictionary after twomillennia. While Vitruvius triad maintains itspresence in discussions nowadays, Salingaros

triad is apparently admired and adopted byWestern C lassical architec ts. The reason is that itvalidates new classical and traditional buildingsby means of scientific arguments, although hiswork is not about classical architecture at all.

Implicitly and explicitly, Salingaros writingswithin the triad and also other writings favorthe architecture of indigenous populations,and especially those of traditional Islamicarchitecture. It is here that the greatest degreeof life can be found through form and

artificial materials. Because his writings havea broad scope that addresses these specifics,they are being translated into Persian andseveral European languages. However, theyhave not been circulated within the Arabworld as one would expect. Therefore, this is acall for Arab scholars, who should also join themovement of creating responsive architecture,that is an architecture based upon science,

society, culture, and logic. They should embarkon a translation effort so that these theoriescan reach their target population, especiallyarchitec ture students. In fact, Salingaros triadvalidates centuries of traditional architecture,which is being ridiculed and despised by anti-vitruvian architects and practices, in Salingaroswords: by a certain ignorant class of Westernarchitec ts. Unfortunately, younger architec tsin many parts of the world and especially in theArab and Muslim world have picked up theseprejudices and are currently looking down ontheir tradition as a step backward, and assomething to avoid. Actually, they are assaultingtheir culture and its underlying traditions.

Evidently, we are living in a time of confusion,and in a world in which no one theory will havethe upper hand in solving the contemporary


8/12/2019 1.2.11-A. Salama-pp114-131

17/18


ASHRAFM.

SA

LAMA needs of soc iety in the field of architecture and

urbanism. This requires redefining architectureto be ultimately a social act, and a scientific/intuitive art. It is crucial for current theoryand practice to question once again thefundamental values embodied in traditionalarchitecture and urbanism in a scientificmanner, and to look for ways in which suchvalues can contribute to the creation of livableenvironments. Now, one should pose questionsthat were repeatedly posed by others: 1) Isarchitecture nothing more than a mask of

authority and power? 2) Is it a means of hidinghardship and the harsh realities of ugliness,poverty, inequity, and injustice that plagueworld societies as a result of Globalization?3) Is it a camouflage that covers up theepidemics of anti-vitruvian architects and theirfollowers? 4) Is it a veil that simply hides thesymptoms of the ills that characterize currenturban environments? In the context of efforts

attempting to find thoughtful answers, and inthe midst of the recent social, political andcultural turmoil, Nikos A. Salingaros declares thebeginning of a visionary thinking paradigm. Inmy view, this is a new De Archi tec turafor 21st-century architecture and urbanism.

Notes(1) Fem ale a rc hi tec t c elebr it ies are show ing of f :

During the World Congress of Architects (2005) of

the Inte rnationa l Union o f Arch itec ts-UIA, I rec a l l the

va st entry lob b y of the Co nvent ion C ente r in Istanb ul,

Turkey f illed wi th hund red s of stud ents, young an d old

a rchitec ts, jou rnal ists, crit ics a nd w riters, who c a m e

from di f ferent pa rt so the wo rld. This wa s be c au se

a l l we re w a i t ing fo r Zaha Had id to g ive one of the

c ong ress keynote sp ee c hes. Like Roc k or Heavy M eta l

sta rs, she c am e in trousers, blouse, an d l igh t jac ket,

a ll in blac k, surroun de d b y a num be r of b od y gua rd s,

and those w a i t ing sc ream ed as soon as she a pp ea red

on the esca la to r on her wa y to the aud ito r ium. Peo p le

were dying to get autograph signatures from her.

Striking ly, whe n I a tten d ed the lec ture I fou nd a less

than a pp ea ling p resen ta t ion , no t m uch to say a bo utthe w ork presen ted , no t eve n the typ ica l rhe to r ic one

g en era l ly he a rs from d ec on structivists.

(2) I ha ve rea c hed a simi lar c onc lusion d ur ing the

Arc hitec tural Public Sessions of A l Azhar Eng ineering

5thInte rnationa l Co nferen c e in 1997, AEIC-97, w he re

Cha rles Jenc ks ga ve a spe ec h in Le-Me rid ien , C a iro.

Egyp t . He w a s very art ic u late a nd his lec ture wa s

inf luent ia l to ma ny be c au se of the b ig w ords he used .

Students and fac u lty f rom around the Arab wo rld we reintrig ue d b y his a rgum en ts. Striking ly, a g a in, no single

wo rd of c rit ic ism from the p a rt of a rc hitec ts inc lud ing

m yself wa s sa id. How ev er, som e soc ial sc ien tists a nd

l ing uists w ere p resen t, and no ted a sup erf ic ial ity in

the a rgum ents he in t rod uce d on Arch i tec tu re o f the

Jump ing Universe.

References

Ac kerrman, J . (1969). Listening to Architecture,Harvard Educational Review. Vol 39 (4), HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA. PP. 4-10.

Alexander, C. (2004). Foreword: The Interaction ofArchitecture and Science. Katarxis No. 3. Availableonline http://www.katarxis3.com/Alexander_Architecture_Science.htm. Accessed in May 12, 2007.Burgess, P. (1983) (ed.). The Role of the Architectin Soc iety, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg,Pennsylvania, USA.

Cuff, D. (1989). Through the Looking Glass: SevenNew York Architects and their People, In ArchitectsPeople, Eds. Russell Ellis and Dana Cuff, OxfordUniversity Press, New York, USA. PP. 64-102.

Derrida, J . (1973). Speech and Phenomena, andOther Essays on Husserls Theory of Signs, NorthWestern University Press, Evanston, Illinois, USA.

Erber, E. (1970). (ed.). Urban Planning in Transition,Grossman, New York, USA.


8/12/2019 1.2.11-A. Salama-pp114-131

18/18


ASHRAFM.

SA

LAMA Granger, F. (1931). Vitruvius: On Architecture

I & II, (Translation) Loeb Classicial Library-Harvard,Cambridge, Mass, USA.

Kellbaugh, D. (2004). Seven Fallac ies in ArchitecturalCulture, J ournal of Architectural Education, Vol. 58(1), PP. 66-68.

Mitchell, (1993). Redefining Designing: From Form toExperience, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, USA.

Morgan, M. H. (1960). Vitruvius: Ten Books onArchitecture, (Translation), Dover Publications, New

York, USA.

O Gorman, J . (1997). ABC of Architecture, Universityof Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Ozkan, S. (1999). The Dilemma of History: Theoryand Education in Architecture, In W. OReilly (ed.),Architectural Knowledge and Cultural Diversity,Comportements, Lausanne, Switzerland. PP. 145-154.

Rowland, I. & Howe, T. (1999). Vitruvius: Ten Bookson Architecture, (Second Edition: 2001), CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA.

Salama, A. (1995). New Trends in ArchitecturalEducation: Designing the Design Studio, Tailored Textand Unlimited Potential Publishing, Raleigh, North

Carolina, USA.

Salama, A. (1998). A New Paradigm in ArchitecturalPedagogy: Integrating Enviornment Behavior Studiesinto Architectural Education Teaching Practices,In J . Tecklenburg, J . van Andel, J . Smeets, and A.Seidel (eds.), IAPS-15 Proc eedings: Shifting Balances:Changing Roles in Policy, Research, and Design.

EIRASS-European Institute of Retailing and ServiceStudies, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. PP. 128-139.

Salama, A. (1999). Incorporating Knowledge aboutCultural Diversity into Architectural Pedagogy, In W.OReilly (ed.), Architectural Knowledge and CulturalDiversity, Comportements, Lausanne, Switzerland. PP.135-144.

Salama, A . (2002). Contemporary Cairo Demystified: ACritical Voice on Architecture and Urbanism. ARCHIS.

J ournal of Architecture, City and Visual Culture, StitchPublications, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. PP. 28-32.

Salama, A. (2003). Why are Famous ArchitectsFamous? ArchNet Discussion Forum , online 20 September 2003.

Salama, A. (2007). MediterraneanVisual Messages:The Conundrum of Identity, ISMS, and Meaning inContemporary Egyptian Architecture, Archnet-IJAR:International Journal of Architectural Research. Vol. 1(1), PP.86/104. (Online)http://archnet.org/library/documents/one-document.tcl?document_id=10069

Sanigaros, N. (2004). Anti Architecture andDeconstruction, with contributions by C . Alexander,B. Hanson, M. Nehaffy, and T. Mikiten, Umbau-Verlag,Solingen, Germany.

Salingaros, N. (2005). Principles of Urban Structure,with contributions by A. Coward, B. West, A.van Bilsen, The Techne Press, Amsterdam, TheNetherlands.

Salingaros, N. (2006). A Theory of Architecture, with

contributions by M. Mehaffy, T. Mikiten, D. Tejada,and H. Yu, Umbau-Verlag, Solingen, Germany.

Salingaros, N. & Masden II, K. G. (2007). Restructuring21st-Century Architecture Through HumanIntelligence, Archnet-IJ AR: International J ournal ofArchitectural Research. Vol. 1 (1), PP.36/52. (Online)http://archnet.org/library/documents/one-document.tcl?document_id=10066

Salingaros, N. (2007). Home Page: Papers onArchitecture, Complexity, Patterns, and Urbanism,http://www.math.utsa.edu/sphere/salingar/contr.arch.html, accessed in May 15, 2007.

Smith, T. G. (2004). Vitruvius on Architecture, TheMonacelli Press, New York, USA.Stiglitz, J . (2003). Globalization and Its Discontents, W.W. Norton and Company, New York, USA.

Wikepedia (2007). Nikos Salingaros http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikos_Salingaros

Documents

1.2.11-A. Salama-pp114-131