drew mcnamaraALL PATTERNED EVERYTHING

Conclusions

96

This thesis process was meant to be an investigation, an exploration, a questioning, and a testing. As a result of the scientific nature through which the process was carried out, it is pertinent to discuss the conclusion in terms of limitations of the experiments, thoughts, and theories. Throughout the year, skepticism has become the operative word, as every answer has provided two more questions.

The primary limitation of the project is the blatant and inherent [literal] ‘top-down’ analysis. Heavy use of mapping and plan gave limited emphasis of what pattern may mean for the ground conditions, elevation, and sectional quality of space. Generally, heavy mapping and plan analysis tends to turn a project into an exercise in graphic design as opposed to what may actually function properly.

There are several questions that must be put forth. For example, what is the extent or importance that geometry and shape play in the employment of patterns? Questions of causality come to light. Are patterns a cause, an effect, both, or neither? This is a necessary question so as to avoid misled or misguided attempts at critically using pattern in design.

Firsthand experience also led to the realization that overstatement or overemphasis on the visual or geometry itself may lead to arguments of the invalidation of pattern. There could be nothing worse for a designer attempting to prove that pattern, something that is vague, ubiquitous, and at time consumed in stylistic fads, actually matters and must be taken seriously if some pressing issues in planning and architecture are to be addressed. Notably that of resiliency and the turning away from large, one-off master plans.

97

This is not to say that pattern is the be-all end-all solution for all architectural and planning issues. In fact, as elucidated in the experiments, it may serve well enough as a method of analysis.

However, it should be not be relegated to the sidelines as simply a way of discovering order of the chaotic and often times frenetic built environments. Pattern has proven itself to be capable of embracing randomness and chaos, tempering it with repetition and redundancy

98 Beginning A Long Reflection Process...

BREAD AND CIRCUSES

WISDOM OF THE INCREMENTAL OUTPUT ?INPUT

EX:WOLFRAM’S CELLULAR AUTOMATA

we design the input [process], not the output [result].

this may be said to be indeterminate, but what might bediscovered is that some inputs have determined outputs.

some processes are determinate in that they will lead to a consisten output, or a pattern.

FUTURESASSUMPTIONSPRESUMPTIONSPRESUPPOSITIONSPREDICTIONSPROJECTIONS

PROACTIVEREACTIVE

? ACTION

proactive model

RESPONSEREACTION

BUILTUNBUILT

ACTION

reactive model

RESPONSEREACTION

BUILTUNBUILT

PROJECTION

futures model

BUILTUNBUILT

ACTION

reactive model

RESPONSEREACTION

BUILTUNBUILT

the designer and design may hope for the emergence ofa particular pattern [behavior, etc.], but cannot predict norguarantee its permanent or existence as intended.

a feedback loop must be implemented so that the designer and design receive information that allows for determinationof the error that is leading to the unintended result.

the designer and design may adjust to correct the unintended result. or they may use this information to anticipate new behaviors, alwaysin an effort to be proactive and not merely reactive. it is a horizontalfeedback system, rather than a vertical one.

butterfly effect...small variations input lead to amplified variations in output

we can track forwards, but cannot decipher backwards.

meaning, we can follow an input to see what its effect on output is, butwe cannot disect the output and discover what small input led to its existence.

employing patterns in design ensures that complexity is presentat all scales.

there are patterns that emerge, and patterns that are designed.patterns can be designed as the final output, or used as the originalinput. the question remains is whether processes can be patternedand if so, what is their output? is the feedback loop not a process pattern?

do we design the wave? the dune? the cracked desert ground? or do we design the processes that these patterns emerge from?

does gyorgy kepes’ quoted phrase, “pattern in process, process in pattern” have any sort of directionality? meaning, can wedesign the process for the pattern to emerge, but can we alsouse patterns to generate process?

this opens the discussion of so-called “top down” and“bottom up” planning and urban processes.

occasionally it seems planning becomes an exercisein graphic design. however, some very thoughfullyplanned cities in history have been relatively successful. amsterdam is an example of this.

large scale change in a short amount of time isundesirable. enormous master planning (ie noisette)can be likened to the ecological principle of disturbance. widespread change at oncethe disrputs the structure, population, among manyother factors, in a short period of time.in this case, it may be determined that too much emphasis

has been given to the ‘look’ or ‘form’ of the plan, and notenough on the activity, elevation, section, etc.

open frameworks in which program, activity, etc. expands intoor the framework which allows the making of individual decisions.

“pattern being the organization into which something expands”

this may eventually lead the original design and designer so farfrom the original that it is hardly recognizable, yet still the resultof a simple system acting in a recursive manner.

99

BREAD AND CIRCUSES

WISDOM OF THE INCREMENTAL OUTPUT ?INPUT

EX:WOLFRAM’S CELLULAR AUTOMATA

we design the input [process], not the output [result].

this may be said to be indeterminate, but what might bediscovered is that some inputs have determined outputs.

some processes are determinate in that they will lead to a consisten output, or a pattern.

FUTURESASSUMPTIONSPRESUMPTIONSPRESUPPOSITIONSPREDICTIONSPROJECTIONS

PROACTIVEREACTIVE

? ACTION

proactive model

RESPONSEREACTION

BUILTUNBUILT

ACTION

reactive model

RESPONSEREACTION

BUILTUNBUILT

PROJECTION

futures model

BUILTUNBUILT

ACTION

reactive model

RESPONSEREACTION

BUILTUNBUILT

the designer and design may hope for the emergence ofa particular pattern [behavior, etc.], but cannot predict norguarantee its permanent or existence as intended.

a feedback loop must be implemented so that the designer and design receive information that allows for determinationof the error that is leading to the unintended result.

the designer and design may adjust to correct the unintended result. or they may use this information to anticipate new behaviors, alwaysin an effort to be proactive and not merely reactive. it is a horizontalfeedback system, rather than a vertical one.

butterfly effect...small variations input lead to amplified variations in output

we can track forwards, but cannot decipher backwards.

meaning, we can follow an input to see what its effect on output is, butwe cannot disect the output and discover what small input led to its existence.

employing patterns in design ensures that complexity is presentat all scales.

there are patterns that emerge, and patterns that are designed.patterns can be designed as the final output, or used as the originalinput. the question remains is whether processes can be patternedand if so, what is their output? is the feedback loop not a process pattern?

do we design the wave? the dune? the cracked desert ground? or do we design the processes that these patterns emerge from?

does gyorgy kepes’ quoted phrase, “pattern in process, process in pattern” have any sort of directionality? meaning, can wedesign the process for the pattern to emerge, but can we alsouse patterns to generate process?

this opens the discussion of so-called “top down” and“bottom up” planning and urban processes.

occasionally it seems planning becomes an exercisein graphic design. however, some very thoughfullyplanned cities in history have been relatively successful. amsterdam is an example of this.

large scale change in a short amount of time isundesirable. enormous master planning (ie noisette)can be likened to the ecological principle of disturbance. widespread change at oncethe disrputs the structure, population, among manyother factors, in a short period of time.in this case, it may be determined that too much emphasis

has been given to the ‘look’ or ‘form’ of the plan, and notenough on the activity, elevation, section, etc.

open frameworks in which program, activity, etc. expands intoor the framework which allows the making of individual decisions.

“pattern being the organization into which something expands”

this may eventually lead the original design and designer so farfrom the original that it is hardly recognizable, yet still the resultof a simple system acting in a recursive manner.