Introduction — The Underlying Order

The ideas presented in this writing have developed gradually over many years, emerging through reflection, practice, and sustained inquiry. Their origin can be traced to the late 1990s, when questions concerning the nature of design—its structure, coherence, and underlying order—began to occupy my thinking with increasing intensity. What follows is not a singular proposition, but the result of a long engagement with architecture as both a discipline and a lived process.

This work is rooted in a thesis completed in November 2001 for the Master of Advanced Studies in Architecture at the University of British Columbia. Titled Intelligent Intervention: Toward a Definition for the Process of Design in the Architecture of Design/Build, it sought to articulate a design methodology grounded in experience. At that time, it reflected nearly two decades of practice following my graduation from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1980. Its central aim was to define a creative design process—one that contrasts with the conventional office-centered model—while situating this approach within a broader theoretical framework.

To support this inquiry, I turned to established architectural thought, particularly the writings of Russell Sturgis. His definition of design provided a structured lens through which architecture could be understood as a disciplined field rather than an intuitive act. Sturgis identified key principles—proportion, symmetry, order, unity, adaptability, nature, tradition, need, and material—that together form a coherent framework for examining architectural practice. Through these principles, design becomes legible as a system of relationships grounded in both logic and experience.

Among these, the first four—proportion, symmetry, order, and unity—suggest a fundamental relationship to geometry. They point toward an underlying structure that precedes formal expression and transcends stylistic variation. Geometry, in this sense, is not merely representational, but generative: it provides the framework through which architecture acquires coherence and meaning. It is within this domain that the idea of resonance begins to emerge, where form aligns with deeper patterns that organize both perception and the built environment.

In revisiting my thesis, it became evident that the discussion of geometry possessed a distinct and independent strength. What had once been part of a broader framework began to stand on its own as a primary line of inquiry. Rather than addressing all aspects of my original thesis simultaneously, I chose to concentrate on geometry as the foundation of this book, leaving the remaining principles—adaptability, nature, tradition, need, and material—for future exploration.

Architecture as Resonance is therefore both a continuation and a distillation. It examines architecture through the lens of geometry and pattern, seeking to understand how these elements inform the design process. More importantly, it explores how architecture can move beyond formal composition toward a deeper alignment between form and meaning—where geometry is not only seen, but felt, and where design becomes an act of resonance between the built world and the principles that underlie it.