An argument against unified place character

Unified modern/Palladian architectural character (Chopping Bottom Farm, Virginia)

Fields in Scotland

Don't places need to have some unified architectural or natural character to match their grammatical unity? In fact, they do not.

Unified character is not necessary for an area to be a place, because many social places, especially in their early stages, lack unified character, as can be seen from the many informal rooms where institutions often reside when they take their start. These tend to look alike, although the institutions might be quite different.

Nor is unified character by itself sufficient to make an area into a place, because character can distinguish a locale and make it feel unified and appropriate, yet the locale not be a place in any social sense.

A striking natural locale that feels like a unified whole might include half of a farm and half of a neighboring nature preserve, which have quite different sorts of place grammars and different ways of relating to nature.

• [Nearby: Place grammar outline -- "Place character" is an inadequate diagnostic -- A unified and centered locale ]