Why, in this moment, should anybody be writing about Christopher Alexander – a great white male with a heroic legacy who believes that the relationship between a Christian god and architecture can be empirically verified?

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

• Architects should understand Alexander's influence, programmers should critique it, and all should be suspicious of the monolithic white male architect trope.claim0.815
  Steenson's normative stance on how different groups should engage with Alexander.
• Alexander claims there is a necessary connection between God and architecture that is, in part, empirically verifiable.claim0.808
  Summary of Alexander's position in the 2016 article 'Making the Garden'.
• As an architect, Alexander has become convinced that the I is certainly real in buildings and must necessarily play a fundamental role in architecture.claim0.798
  Alexander's personal scientific and professional conclusion stated in the Mid-Book Appendix.
• For technologists, Alexander himself represents 'architecture': he is often the only architect they can name.claim0.783
  Observation about Alexander's outsized symbolic role in software communities.
• I am an unintentional defender of Christopher Alexander.claim0.783
  Steenson's self-description of her ambivalent role.
• De-universalizing Alexander by researching his collaborators and context would be preferable to solo-figure Christian teleology.hypothesis0.782
• I warn programmers and UX designers not to worship Alexander, and to be critical about his universalizing theories.claim0.771
  Steenson's caution against uncritical adoption of Alexander's work in technology.
• Christopher Alexander's lifelong project is an architecture of cosmological order.claim0.767
  Thesis about the through-line of Alexander's work from the 1960s onward.