What is the difference between those buildings generated by living process (unfolding and structure-preserving transformations) compared with those buildings created wilfully by arbitrary design moves?

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

• Living structure in buildings can only be GENERATED. It cannot be created by brute force from designs.claim0.845
  Core thesis of Book 2, stated at the transition to Part Two.
• Living structure can only be created by structure-preserving transformations.claim0.836
  A strong normative claim from Book 2 recapitulated in the appendix as a verifiable and surprising conclusion.
• The geometry of living structure is markedly different in kind from the geometry of design done on a drawing board or on a computer.claim0.829
  Fundamental distinction between generated and static geometry.
• The creation of living structure cannot be done in any other way.claim0.826
• Structure-preserving transformations govern the emergence of all structure in nature, not just in buildings and art.hypothesis0.821
  Alexander's conjecture extending the unfolding framework from architecture to natural phenomena generally.
• Such a process will not—in general—create living structure.claim0.820
• If a building is made by a process that allows fine adaptation through feedback, it will have life; if built from fixed drawings, it will not.hypothesis0.820
  Predictive conditional summarizing the chapter's argument.
• A truly dynamic structure-preserving process generates layouts in which every single bit of space becomes a living center — streets, lots, gardens, courtyards, housesclaim0.817
  Core claim about the morphological output of the fundamental process applied to neighborhood design.