Joint prize for dynamic duo

Screen Shot 2018-08-29 at 7.54.31 PM.png

From the book Over Europe, Text by Jan Morris (Weldon Owen Inc., 1988)

My Traditional Building just arrived and reveals that Nikos Salingaros and Michael Mehaffy have received this year’s Clem Labine Award from the magazine. Congratulations to them both. Much of my education regarding how science affects architecture and urbanism comes from their research and writing, especially the jointly bylined pieces they’ve produced for magazines and the books they’ve edited or written.

After taking notice of the conventional wisdom that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that science has little to do with it, TB’s lengthy online article about the award, by Nancy Ruhling, states:

[T]his year’s Clem Labine winners see a game-changing contribution to architecture from the sciences, giving us a decidedly different picture. Beauty is a largely shared experience that is rooted in the physical structure of things, they say. The sciences offer us a useful lens for understanding that structure and how we can create and improve it with more emotionally powerful and transcendent results.

Ruhling’s piece has plenty of quotes from both Mehaffy and Salingaros. She meticulously describes their work and history. The first is an urbanist who founded and runs a think tank in Portland, Ore., the Sustasis Foundation; the latter is a professor of mathematics at the University of Texas, San Antonio, who has worked for decades with the architect and computer-design theorist Christopher Alexander. Both winners seek to integrate Alexander’s “pattern language” and other “living” architectural insights into the principles and practice of the New Urbanism (basically the old urbanism revived). After introducing the pair, Ruhling quotes Salingaros:

I applied mathematical rules for the kinds of buildings that give healing feedback, and I worked with architect Christopher Alexander, the inventor of pattern language. With my formula, I can judge a building, even a door, as positive, neutral or negative.

Of course, most people do that instinctively. Nobody needs a formula to tell traditional architecture from modern architecture, or which is superior. But neither can anyone underestimate the importance of formula in codifying links between beauty and science. Our brains are hardwired by neurobiology to judge architecture and urban design. Architecture is a practical art. It is the only art people experience almost every waking moment of the day since childhood, and often even in our dreams. We all have an ability to judge buildings and streetscapes that is actually more sophisticated than that of those who have been educated in those fields. The No. 1 job of architecture schools is to purge the deep, intuitive feelings about beauty from the conscious thinking of young students.

Regarding the ability to judge the quality of place, Mehaffy states:

If you ask most people to look at traditional places, they love them. That’s where we almost all go on our holidays. Ask them to look at modern places, and the reaction is far more mixed, if not downright negative. … [Traditional architecture] has a rich and complex provenance. It represents the accumulated experience of how to live well in a beautiful, healthy environment. And it’s better adapted to the intricacies of human experiences because it evolved over a long period of time.

The two disagree somewhat on the prospects for a revival of beauty in architecture. Salingaros states that

Michael and I are fighting this giant profitable machine driven by trillions of dollars. The regime run by the top architecture schools propagates the same old ideas from the early 20th century. And the mainstream media is blindly following the architectural media, which promotes contorted buildings and glass and steel architecture. That promotion is being driven by the global building industry and its business-as-usual approach.

The more optimistic Mehaffy replies:

Nikos is focused on storming the gates of architecture, and understandably he gets frustrated because they are closed to him. I’m not as cynical as he is, maybe because I am looking at a bigger audience. I see many people in many other fields converging on the new findings from the sciences and looking at things in a very different light—especially now that people are connecting the dots to human health and sustainability. It’s just that it’s taking time for an isolated architectural establishment to awaken to the new reality. We have to keep pushing.

At the center of the pushing is, of course, Clem Labine, for whom the award is named, who founded Traditional Building and other journals that seek to spread enlightenment about architecture and urban design. He himself writes an excellent, no-holds-barred column on architecture.

Working with TB publisher Active Interest Media, Labine and his colleagues have built a network of institutions that bring architects and developers together with artisans, craftsmen and the firms through which they market their work. TB seminars across the country sponsored by AIM spread the word about traditional design and the strategies by which it makes human life more healthy and beautiful. Along with the Palladio Awards, which honor individual projects, the Clem Labine Award is a vital platform for recognizing great work by individuals to promote the classical revival.

So, yes, you two, Nikos and Michael, keep on pushing! You are bringing many others along with you, and eventually things will change and the world will realize that it, too, owes you much.

About David Brussat

This blog was begun in 2009 as a feature of the Providence Journal, where I was on the editorial board and wrote a weekly column of architecture criticism for three decades. Architecture Here and There fights the style wars for classical architecture and against modern architecture, no holds barred. History Press asked me to write and in August 2017 published my first book, "Lost Providence." I am now writing my second book. My freelance writing on architecture and other topics addresses issues of design and culture locally and globally. I am a member of the board of the New England chapter of the Institute of Classical Architecture & Art, which bestowed an Arthur Ross Award on me in 2002. I work from Providence, R.I., where I live with my wife Victoria, my son Billy and our cat Gato. If you would like to employ my writing and editing to improve your work, please email me at my consultancy,, or call 401.351.0457. Testimonial: "Your work is so wonderful - you now enter my mind and write what I would have written." - Nikos Salingaros, mathematician at the University of Texas, architectural theorist and author of many books.
This entry was posted in Architecture, Urbanism and planning and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Joint prize for dynamic duo

  1. Pingback: Landscape urbanism revisited | Architecture Here and There

  2. Mike DiLauro says:

    Is there any chance at all that Clem Labine is related to the Clem Labine from Woonsocket who pitched for the Brooklyn Dodgers in the 1950’s and other teams too I think? He figures prominently in Roger Kahn’s beautiful book, Boys of Summer, about the Jackie Robinson Dodger teams. I recall from that book that he had a son who lost a leg in Vietnam. Just curious….


    • Mike, I do believe they are related, but Clem is not Clem Labine’s son. I asked him once and I seem to recall he said yes, but I don’t recall the relationship he described (if I am recalling correctly). I will ask him again. Check back here.


      • Here is Clem’s reply, Mike, both short version and long:

        Hi David —

        The short answer to your question about the Dodgers’ Clem Labine is that we are very distant relatives. A more elaborate answer is provided by my daughter Eleanor, who is the family genealogist:

        “All Labines descend from Jean-Baptiste Guidry dit Labrador who returned to Quebec in the 1760s after the Acadian Deportations of Nova Scotia. At that point, his “dit” name changed from Labrador to Labine. One theory is, Labine (literally, “the Bean”) is a reference to Boston, or Bean-town, where Jean-Baptiste had been held a prisoner for the ten years of the French & Indian wars.”

        Equally interesting: Both Clem Labines are distant relatives of (“Louisiana Lightning”) Ron Guidry! Our family ancestor who immigrated to Acadia in the 1600’s was named “GUIDRY.” Just about all the Guidrys got deported to Louisiana in the French expulsions of 1755-1764. For reasons unknown to us, the Labine family ancestor avoided Louisiana and ended up in detention in Boston, and then made it back to Quebec. In Quebec the Guidry name gradually faded, leaving just the “Labine.”

        That is surely more than you wanted to know ! Best wishes,

        Clem 😉


        • Mike DiLauro says:

          Thank you Clem and David. What a great story. I am a fan of NYC baseball generally and that of the Yankees in particular so the mention of Ron Guidry was doubly precious to me. His magical 1978 Cy Young Award winning season is still very fresh in my mind. What a great coincidence to have connected 2 NYC baseball legends. Thanks again.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.