Architects became advance men for the structure-destroying program, inventing slogans like 'machine for living' to justify machine-based processes.

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

• The machine-like processes of modern society (planning, budgeting, contracting) are the primary cause of structure-destroying forms, not architects alone.claim0.803
  Systemic blame.
• The architecture of the past century served the inherently machine-like production process that is incapable of creating life.claim0.787
  General historical verdict.
• 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.claim0.784
  Historical shift.
• The core of the modern design movement—striving for originality, newness, breaking with tradition—was a structure-destroying force that denied unfolding.claim0.784
  Fundamental critique of modernism.
• Progress in theory and practice requires a novel conception of 'machines as they could be,' based on the profound lessons of biology at all scales.claim0.783
  The paper's overarching constructive goal, paralleling Langton's 'life as it could be'
• Architects who believe they help make things more human by going back to stone, mud, and thatch are deluding themselves that this could ever enter widespread mainstream building processesclaim0.782
  Alexander's critique of the romantic return to primitive materials as economically unviable at scale.
• The notion of 'machine' used to claim living things are not machines refers to an outdated definition that no longer fits.claim0.775
  First central claim of the paper: the machine concept used in organicist critiques is historically contingent, not essential
• Architects must now necessarily play a major role as inventors of new techniques because existing available techniques do not permit creation of living structureclaim0.767
  Alexander's argument that passive component-assembly is insufficient and architects must become inventors.