8/18/2019 Chilyoutenvi.18.2.0278

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chilyoutenvi1820278 1/5

University of Cincinnati and Board of Regents of the University of Colorado, a body corporate, for the benefit 

 of the Children, Youth and Environments Center at the University of Colorado Boulder are collaborating with JSTOR

 to digitize, preserve and extend access to Children, Youth and Environments.

http://www.jstor.org

University of incinnati

ReviewAuthor(s): Jelacic, Matthew

Review by: Jelacic, MatthewSource: Children, Youth and Environments, Vol. 18, No. 2, Collected Papers (2008), pp. 278-281Published by: Board of Regents of the University of Colorado, a body corporate, for thebenefit of the Children, Youth and Environments Center at the University of Colorado Boulder

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.18.2.0278Accessed: 09-12-2015 14:35 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/  info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

This content downloaded from 88.255.172.92 on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 14:35:33 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

8/18/2019 Chilyoutenvi.18.2.0278

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chilyoutenvi1820278 2/5

8/18/2019 Chilyoutenvi.18.2.0278

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chilyoutenvi1820278 3/5

279 

that Alexander and collaborators first articulated in their threevolume work. Nair and Fielding begin their introduction byspecifically discussing their indebtedness to the second volume, APattern Language, and organize their book in a similar fashion,

enumerating 25 patterns that they propose schools in the twenty-first century will contain. Similar to A Pattern Language, each of the25 patterns identified includes a description and sketches of aparticular pattern and a concrete or real example of this patternbuilt in an existing school. The text and illustrations are well done—the drawings and photographs are superior to those of their model.

However, there are significant differences between Alexander andNair and Fielding. Although The Language of School Design isdescribed as the beginning of a larger set of patterns that the

authors hope to evolve through online contributions by adherents totheir process, the reality is that their “atoms and molecules” varysignificantly from Alexander’s on three key points. First, A PatternLanguageenumerates patterns over a wide range of scales, from “waist-high shelf” to “pedestrian street,” all understood as part of alarger, living set of patterns within a particular culture. The patternsof Nair and Fielding are less varied in both scale and detail, but alsothey are limited to school building components with oneexception. The exception, “Pattern #24: Connected to the

Community,” outlines a principle of accessibility for the entirecommunity, but does not go so far as to elaborate ways in whichtheir school building patterns are integral spatial components of acommunity. The building becomes an object in The Language ofSchool Design, not a part of a larger network of patterns sought byAlexander. Second, the objective of Nair and Fielding is to create agraphic kit of parts that will be useful for professionals and clientsas a shared trace, or copy book of ideas. This radically simplifies theaspirations of Alexander’s work in so far as it assumes a common,shared, transcultural set of patterns that everyone invested in theuse of their book will share. Finally, the role of the design team inAlexander’s work is conceived from the outset as that of communityorganizers. Participants in The Oregon Experiment  consistentlynoted that their input preceded every decision, every drawing oftheir project. The design team entered with no preconceptions otherthan the value of the community’s involvement in the design

This content downloaded from 88.255.172.92 on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 14:35:33 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

8/18/2019 Chilyoutenvi.18.2.0278

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chilyoutenvi1820278 4/5

280 

process. By radically simplifying and codifying the patterns fortwenty-first century schools, however, The Language of SchoolDesign limits the possibility of deviation from “best practices” asdefined by the author/architects.

These differences may be the inevitable consequences of therealities of designing and building schools in contemporarysociety. The practical opportunities for civic engagement, thefinancial burden of the time that must be committed by a designteam to help a community evolve its own set of patterns, and thecomplexity of the building industry generally may preclude theorganic and layered approach that Alexander imagines;nonetheless, much is lost in the process of simplification. In part,the losses are perhaps also the inevitable consequence of

Alexander’s construct itself. It is telling that Nair and Fielding nevermention either The Timeless Way of Building nor The OregonExperiment . In a culture that can uncritically adopt the style booksof the Congress of the New Urbanism, despite their hegemonicimplications, it is perhaps not too surprising that a “pattern book” ofschool components would seem a useful and efficient tool forexpediting, or perhaps glossing over, some difficult questions thatcommunities must face when building any new civic building forthemselves. As was proven with Palladio’s I Quattro Libri

dell’Architettura, the authority of the traceable graphic is easier tosell and consume than a sprawling call for an inclusive communitydialog about values.

Reviewer Information 

Jelacic, Matthew

Matthew Jelacic is an Assistant Professor of Architecture at the

University of Colorado. His current research includes sustainablematerials for sheltering displaced people and the role of spaces foreducation in traumatic urbanization. From 1996-2003 he was a partner in the firm Gans & Jelacic, whose work included emergencyrelief shelters and school furniture for the New York City SchoolConstruction Authority. Prof. Jelacic received his architecture

This content downloaded from 88.255.172.92 on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 14:35:33 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

8/18/2019 Chilyoutenvi.18.2.0278

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chilyoutenvi1820278 5/5

281 

degrees at Pratt Institute and Harvard University’s Graduate Schoolof Design and was a Loeb Fellow in 2003-4. 

This content downloaded from 88.255.172.92 on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 14:35:33 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions