Cities today are not coherent beautiful structures; a city today is more like a rambling incoherent structure loosely placed on the surface of the Earth.

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

• Cities today do not reflect the idiosyncrasies and human characters of people.claim0.822
  States that modern urbanism erases the multitude of differences that constitute our humanity
• According to present-day biological terminology, a city is not a living system.claim0.781
  A statement of current orthodoxy used to highlight the need for a broader definition.
• Cities structured as trees cut life to pieces; semilattices preserve life's strandsclaim0.779
  Alexander's position in 'A City Is Not a Tree' that hierarchical tree structures sever urban life while semilattices enable overlapping, living systems.
• The great majority of modern buildings are awkward assemblies of unrelated components, lacking the coherence necessary to be living designs.claim0.771
  Aesthetic judgment on modern buildings.
• The public space of our present-day cities, both legally and metaphorically, no longer belongs to us to any deep extent.claim0.771
  Diagnosis of why modern citizens feel unwell in public environments
• A structure is truly generated, and perceived as having life, only when it has unfolded from a nice, beautiful sequence of differentiations.claim0.763
  The most profound claim of the chapter: the niceness of the sequence is directly perceptible in the built form and is the ultimate source of living quality.
• 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.claim0.762
  Argues that copying historical forms does not produce living structure.
• Each particle of the city needs to be individual, particular.claim0.753
  A moral and aesthetic imperative for city form rooted in the nature of living tissue