Christopher Alexander talks about reconciling conflicting pressures through design patterns. But mass production is a pressure that he is unwilling to accept because he is too uncompromising. I disagree with this because mass production allows for a high standard of living for the masses that would be impossible without it. In effect, the type of modernism that Vignelli did was the best possible design patterns in response of the universal constraint of mass production. Ultimately Vignelli is practical and Christopher Alexander is not. Only the upper class can really afford Alexander's approach, and it is the buildings of the upper classes of the past that we currently admire. I do agree that beauty cannot be mass produced, but I would settle for the functionality and possible elegance of Vignelli that can be made available to everyone.
Vignelli and Steve Jobs came from a time when simplicity and elegance were appreciated. This is no longer true and anyone like Vignelli would fail today. Today consumers only want crap. And to some degree this was a product of modernism itself. Modernism sacrifices the local cultural aspects of design which helps kill local culture. And without local culture, all sense of quality is lost, even that for modernism itself. So ultimately a compromise between Vignelli and Alexander is needed with some things containing local culture to maintain a sense of quality, and others mass produced to provide an affordable quality of life for all.