I don't know that he "renounced" patterns -- throughout the Nature of Order tetralogy, he refers to many of these patterns when discussing a multitude of examples that appear in these books.
The central tenet of Nature of Order (as far as I understand it) is that spaces can support life, that there's a certain liveliness to structure, "life" as a quality. The presence or absence of patterns is used throughout to argue the extent to which a certain space or structure has this quality.
It's all quite esoteric and wonderful at the same time. Most challenging books I've ever attempted to read.
He literally says (at 39:48 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98LdFA-_zfA&t=2388s) "And it's because [the patterns are] only really fragmentary perceptions of this deeper structure that I'm describing [i.e., centers, the 15 properties…], that they are ultimately unsatisfactory; I think they're not capable of delivering the goods." So maybe not an outright renunciation per se, but definitely a deprecation.
The central tenet of Nature of Order (as far as I understand it) is that spaces can support life, that there's a certain liveliness to structure, "life" as a quality. The presence or absence of patterns is used throughout to argue the extent to which a certain space or structure has this quality.
It's all quite esoteric and wonderful at the same time. Most challenging books I've ever attempted to read.