Open Source Architecture¹ reimagines spatial production as the decoding of latent patterns in urban environments, an engagement with a recursive public, and the re-encoding of static artifacts into dynamic dialogues². This encoding-decoding paradigm extends to architectural drafting practices, where lineweights, hatching patterns, and 2D representations serve as a codified language that simultaneously abstracts and communicates spatial intentions³.

Encoded data such as patterns of occupation and the synergy between neighbourhoods are all latent relationships encoded in physical space. Today, Machine Learning algorithms for feature extraction unveil patterns within our built environment, accelerating the feedback loop between learning tacit knowledge and realization⁴. Like medieval master builders who worked without detailed drawings but with sophisticated systems of proportion and craft knowledge, today's open architecture operates through shared, evolving codes rather than fixed documents⁵.

The contemporary architect, rather than standing as the sole author of built form, might more accurately be understood as a curator of influences, a mediator between multiple knowledge systems, and a facilitator of collaborative processes that extend beyond human participants to include algorithmic agents and material intelligence⁶. This reconfigured understanding of architectural agency does not diminish the architect's importance but situates architectural creation within broader networks of knowledge production that have always characterized the built environment.

1. Ratti, C., & Claudel, M. (2015). Open source architecture. Thames & Hudson. Ratti and Claudel (2015) define Open Source Architecture as a framework that encompasses crowd-funded economic models, collective standards development, and distributed construction methodologies. Its conceptual strength lies in applying genuine open-source principles where every component, including the underlying architectural frameworks themselves, remains modifiable by collaborators. This approach fundamentally transforms the traditionally closed processes of architectural production into an accessible, iterative system.
2. Kelty, C. M. (2008). Two bits: The cultural significance of free software. Duke University Press. This collaborative approach embodies what Kelty (2008) terms a recursive public—a group concerned with maintaining and modifying the technical, legal, and conceptual means that enable their existence as a public. The recursive nature emerges as participants simultaneously shape both architectural artifacts and the systems through which those artifacts are produced and interpreted.
3. Evans, R. (1997). Translations from drawing to building and other essays. MIT Press. Forty, A. (2000). Words and buildings: A vocabulary of modern architecture. Thames & Hudson. Pérez-Gómez, A., & Pelletier, L. (2000). Architectural representation and the perspective hinge. MIT Press. The rise of the draughtsman signaled a pivotal shift in architecture, disentangling conceptualization from execution. As architectural projects grew more complex and specialized, the draughtsman occupied an intermediary position, and later, Evans (1997) observed that the role formalized the division between the intellectual work of design and the physical labor of construction, creating a hierarchical relationship that mirrored broader social stratifications³. Furthermore, Forty (2000) noted that this transformation accelerated with the standardization of architectural drawing conventions in the eighteenth century, while Pérez-Gómez and Pelletier (2000) suggested that the draughtsman's workspace became the site where abstract ideas took on standardized visual language, facilitating communication across increasingly specialized divisions of labor.
4. Carpo, M. (2021). The second digital turn: Design beyond intelligence. MIT Press; Picon, A. (2020). The materiality of architecture. University of Minnesota Press. Carpo argues that the real significance of AI lies not in its ability to mimic human creativity but in how it conceptualizes emerging patterns within datasets, revealing latent relationships invisible to conventional analysis. This mechanism transcends purely formal investigations, offering architects new modes of engagement with complex systems that characterize contemporary design challenges. Rather than threatening architectural authorship, these tools reconfigure it toward what Picon⁴ describes as curatorial intelligence—the capacity to identify meaningful patterns across vast fields of possibilities.
5. Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard University Press. Christopher Alexander, in Notes on the Synthesis of Form, proposed modeling design choices as set-theoretic operations on a set of misfits, M, and their interactions, L. Although he later critiqued the mechanistic reductionism of this framework, it remains useful for modeling constraints such as structural integrity, fire safety, or occupancy patterns. The power of such a system lies in its ability to structure complexity without prescribing outcomes, much like open-source frameworks do.
6. Yanagi, M., & Leach, B. (2013). Unknown craftsman: A Japanese insight into beauty. Kodansha USA. According to Yanagi Soetsu, folk craft production involved concerted efforts over extended timeframes, allowing gradual refinement of forms in response to use patterns, material properties, and cultural evolution. Folk crafts evolved through both conscious intentionality and unconscious wisdom emerging from repeated practice.

Whether architects embrace it or not, regulatory codes have long shaped the aesthetics and formal outcomes of architecture. The 1894 London Building Act, which functioned both as a zoning code and a building code, established foundational parameters for today’s terraced house typology—regulating aspects such as rear yard angles and permissible building materials¹. In more recent contexts, the emergence of "podium construction" (commonly referred to as 5-over-2 construction) in the United States reflects a direct response to both the International Building Code and economic viabilities². To varying degrees, architectural imagination is thus constrained—or at least guided—by codes, whether consciously or unconsciously.

With increasing concerns integrated into building and zoning codes—ranging from safety and accessibility to sustainability and density—the volume and complexity of these regulations have grown to such an extent that it has become nearly impossible for architects to fully digest or proactively engage with them³.

This raises a critical question: Rather than being passive respondents to regulatory frameworks, how might architects reclaim agency in shaping them? How can codes become a product of architectural practice once again?

One potential answer lies in the proposition that architects themselves write codes, utilizing the tools they are most proficient in—visual representation and critical spatial thinking. Inspired by A Pattern Language by Christopher Alexander⁴, architects Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk of the firm DPZ pioneered the first form-based code in the 1980s⁵. A form-based code is defined as “a land development regulation that fosters predictable built results and a high-quality public realm by using physical form as the organizing principle for the code”⁶. Unlike traditional zoning codes—which often focus on abstract and quantitative parameters such as dwelling units per acre, setback distances, and parking minimums—form-based codes prioritize the spatial relationships and physical form of buildings to promote walkability, community character, and urban vitality⁷.

Critically, form-based codes integrate visual documentation, making them inherently more accessible to architects. This visual orientation aligns closely with architectural modes of thought and communication, transforming code from a bureaucratic burden into a tool for design.

This shift in practice introduces a new dynamic of authorship and influence within the architectural profession. Architects who engage in code-writing acquire a distinctive form of agency, as the regulatory frameworks they create shape the design decisions of others working within those parameters. As Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk has noted in a private interview⁸, code-writing should not be understood in binary terms of complete control or total freedom; rather, it involves a gradation of regulatory influence that varies according to the goals and context of each project⁹. Plater-Zyberk also highlights the productive tension between designing architecture and writing codes. She observes that it is intellectually engaging to witness how architects respond creatively to the constraints embedded in the codes she has contributed to¹⁰.

Her reflections underscore the importance of architects’ involvement in code-writing processes, particularly because they possess a deep understanding of how construction methods inform spatial planning and design¹¹. In this way, architects are uniquely positioned to shape codes that are both technically grounded and generative of thoughtful design outcomes.

The form-based code is not merely a representational innovation. By embedding visuality into its framework, it becomes a vibrant and constructive extension of architectural practice. In reimagining the very mode of existence of codes, architects can transform what is currently a site of constraint into a site of opportunity and agency.

1. Fletcher, The London Building Act, 1894.
2. Malone, “5-over-2 Podium Design.”
3. See: Hedman and Bair, “And on the Eighth Day…”; Ferris, zoning illustrations; Ching, Building Codes Illustrated.
4. Alexander, A Pattern Language.
5. Parolek, Form-Based Codes; DPZ, “Form-Based Codes Archives”; DPZ, “Code Writing.”
6. Parolek, Form-Based Codes.
7. Form-Based Codes Institute, “Form-Based Codes Archives.”
8. Interview with Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, Spring 2025, Harvard GSD.
9. Comic illustration shared by Plater-Zyberk showing variable control in code-writing (scale 0–10).
10. Discussion on authorship and peer influence through codes.
11. DPZ codes often specify construction methods aligned with climate and typology.