After 1900, a variety of modern building processes came into use that are not structure-preserving—some accidentally structure-destroying, others actively promoting ugliness for profit.

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• Many modern designs could not, under any circumstances, have been created by a structure-preserving step-by-step process; they are conceptual and barren.claim0.832
  In-principle impossibility claim.
• This process is harmful, and has a strong tendency to work against creation of living structure in building design.claim0.832
• Buildings made with an eye to the past will most often fail to have living structure, because the process of historical reproduction somehow turns vivid, living structure sour.claim0.827
  Argues that copying historical forms does not produce living structure.
• The machine-like processes of modern society (planning, budgeting, contracting) are the primary cause of structure-destroying forms, not architects alone.claim0.823
  Systemic blame.
• Structure-preserving transformations govern the emergence of all structure in nature, not just in buildings and art.hypothesis0.815
  Alexander's conjecture extending the unfolding framework from architecture to natural phenomena generally.
• Human beings can violate the tendency to preserve wholeness either by acting disrespectfully toward it or by failing to perceive it accurately, which explains why modern buildings often lack living structure.claim0.813
  Alexander's explanation for the 'temperamental' nature of the principle: it can be overridden by human agency
• In traditional societies, building processes often preserved and extended wholeness by following natural processes closely.claim0.810
  Historical claim about traditional versus modern building.
• The processes needed to create life were damaged in the 20th century.claim0.810
  Explains why profound life is less common in modern buildings.