By continuing to use the site you agree to our Privacy & Cookies policy

Your browser seems to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser.


Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.


Patrik Schumacher on parametricism - 'Let the style wars begin'

In an exclusive text for the AJ, Patrik Schumacher of Zaha Hadid Architects argues that the unified style of architecture for the 21st century will be parametricism

In my Parametricist Manifesto of 2008, I first communicated that a new, profound style has been maturing within the avant-garde segment of architecture during the last 10 years. The term ‘parametricism’ has since been gathering momentum within architectural discourse and its critical questioning has strengthened it. So far, knowledge of the new style has remained largely confined within architecture, but I suspect news will spread quickly once it is picked up by the mass media. Outside architectural circles, ‘style’ is virtually the only category through which architecture is observed and recognised. A named style needs to be put forward in order to stake its claim to act in the name of architecture.

The concept of style deserves to be defended

The concept of style has for a long time beenlosing traction within architectural discourse. To let this concept wither away would onlyimpoverish the discourse, and a powerful asset for communicating architecture to societywould be lost. However, the resuscitation of this drained and battered concept requires conceptual reconstruction in terms that are intellectually credible today.

What stands in the way of this is thetendency to regard style as merely a matter of appearance, as well as the related tendency toconfuse styles with superficial, short-lived fashions. Although aesthetic appearancematters enormously in architecture and design, neither architecture nor its styles canbe reduced to mere matters of appearance. Neither must the phenomenon of styles beassimilated to the phenomenon of fashion.

The concept of style must therefore besharply distinguished and cleansed of these trivialising and distracting connotations.  It denotes the unity of the difference between the architectural epochs of gothic, renaissance, baroque, classicism, historicism and modernism.The historical self-consciousness of architecture demands the revitalisation of theconcept of style as a profound historical phenomenon that can be projected into thefuture. For this purpose I have proposed that architectural styles are best understood asdesign-research programmes, conceived in analogy to the way paradigms frame scientific research programmes.

A new style in architecture and design isakin to a new paradigm in science; it redefines the fundamental categories, purposes and methods of a coherent collective endeavour. Innovation in architecture proceeds via the progression of styles so understood. This implies the alternation between periods of cumulative advancement within a style, and revolutionary periods of transition between styles. Styles represent long, sustained cycles of innovation, gathering design-research efforts into a collective movement so that individual efforts are mutually relevant,spurning and enhancing. 

Parametricism offers a credible, sustainable answer to the crisis of modernism that resulted in 25 years of stylistic searching

From the inside, within architecture, the identification of parametricism demarcates and further galvanises a maturing avant-garde movement, and thus might serve to accelerate its progress and potential hegemony as acollective research and development effort. As a piece of retrospective description andinterpretation, the announcement of parametricism seems justified after 10 years of consistent, cumulative design research. Prospectively, the announcement of the style should further consolidate the attained achievements and prepare the transition from avant-garde to mainstream hegemony. Parametricism finally offers a credible, sustainable answer to the drawn-out crisis of modernism that resulted in 25 years of stylistic searching.

Parametricism is the great new style after modernism

Post-modernism and deconstructivism were mere transitional episodes, similar to art nouveau and expressionism as transitions from historicism to modernism. The distinction of epochal styles from transitional styles is important. In a period of transition there might emerge a rapid succession of styles, or even a plurality of simultaneous, competing styles. The crisis and demise of modernism lead to a deep and protracted transitional period, but there is no reason to believe that this pluralism cannot be overcome by the hegemony of a new unified style. The potential for such a unification is indeed what we are witnessing.

Beyond the modernistparadigm of separationand repetition

The modernist order of separation and repetition is being supplanted by the parametricist order of continuous differentiation and intensive correlation. Within the broad new paradigm of parametricism, many subsidiary styles might be expected to enrich and progress the coming epoch of parametricism.

Modernism’s crisis does not mean an end to unified styles

Modernism’s crisis and its architectural aftermath has led many critics to believe we can no longer be expected to forge a unified style. Did the profound developmental role of styles in the history of architecture, as evidenced in the gothic-renaissance baroquehistoricism- modernism sequence, come to an end? Did history come to an end? Or did it ragment into criss-crossing and contradictory trajectories? Are we to celebrate this fragmentation of efforts under the slogan of pluralism?

Architecture today is world architecture

Every architectural project is immediately exposed and assessed in comparison to all other projects. Global convergences are possible. This does not mean homogenisation and monotony. It merely implies a consistency of principles,ambitions and values to build upon so that different efforts add up, are relevant to each other and compete constructively with each other, to establish the conditions for progress rather than pursuing contradictory efforts that battle over fundamentals. This is the idea of a unified style; initially as a unified avant-garde design-research programme, and eventually as a unified system of principles, ambitions and values that constitute global best practice.

The new generation

The consistency of the style as a collective design-research programme depends upon the unfailing adherence to the strictures and impositions of parametricism. The good news is that a whole generation of young architects is already adhering to this.

Many theorists – like Charles Jencks, for example – presume that the demise of modernism ushered in an era of stylistic pluralism. Accordingly, the search for a new, unified style is seen as an anachronism. Any style today – so it seems – can only be one among many other simultaneously operatingstyles, thus adding one more voice to the prevailing cacophony of voices. The idea of a pluralism of styles is just one symptom of the more general trivialisation and denigration of the concept of style. I repudiate the complacent acceptance (and even celebration) of the apparent pluralism of styles as a supposed sign of our times. A unified style has many advantages over a condition of stylistic fragmentation. Parametricism aims for hegemony and combats all other styles.

Parametricism’s crucial ability to set up continuities and correspondences across diverse and distant elements relies on its principles holding uninterrupted sway. The admixture of a post-modernist, deconstructivist or minimalist design can only disrupt the penetrating and far-reaching parametricist continuity. The reverse does not hold, because there is no equivalent degree of continuity in post-modernist, deconstructivist or minimalist urbanism.In fact, parametricism can take up vernacular, classical, modernist, post-modernist, deconstructivist and minimalist urban conditions, and forge a new network of affiliations and continuities between and beyond any number of urban fragments and conditions.

Preparing for the style war

What are the current styles that must be combated by parametricism? Is there really still some kind of stylistic pluralism, as posited by Jencks? In fact, post-modernism has disappeared, and the contributions and advances of deconstructivism have been incorporated within parametricism. The mainstream has, in fact, returned to a form of pragmatic modernism with a slightly enriched palette; a form of eclecticism mixing and matching elements from all modernism’s subsidiary styles. The inability of post-modernism and deconstructivism to formulate a new viable paradigm led to the return of modernism in the guise of minimalism as the only consistent, ideologically stringent style that confronts parametricism today. The primary confrontation in the struggle for stylistic hegemony is thus between parametricism and minimalism.

Parametricism claims universal validity.

It cannot be dismissed as eccentric signature work that only fits high-brow cultural icons. Parametricism is able to deliver all the components for a high-performance contemporary life process. All moments of contemporary life become uniquely individuated within a continuous, ordered texture.

The latest built works from Zaha Hadid Architects are much more than experimental manifesto projects; they succeed as highperformance projects in the real world. The Nordpark Cable Railway stations in Innsbruck are a good example. No other style could have achieved this coincidence of adaptive variation to the different site conditions with genotypical coherence across those phenotypical variants. Parametricism is ready to go mainstream. The style war has begun.

Patrik Schumacher is a partner at Zaha Hadid Architects

What is parametricism?

Parametricism implies that all architectural elements and complexes are parametrically malleable. This implies a fundamental ontological shift within the basic, constituent elements of architecture. Instead of classical and modern reliance on rigid geometrical figures – rectangles, cubes, cylinders, pyramids and spheres – the new primitives of parametricism are animate geometrical entities – splines, nurbs and subdivs. These are fundamental geometrical building blocks for dynamical systems like ‘hair’, ‘cloth’, ‘blobs’ and ‘metaballs’ that react to ‘attractors’ and can be made to resonate with each other via scripts.

Parametricism aims to organise and articulate the increasing diversity and complexity of social institutions and life processes within the most advanced centre of post-Fordist network society. It aims to establish a complex variegated spatial order, using scripting to differentiate and correlate all elements and subsystems of a design. The goal is to intensify the internal interdependencies within an architectural design, as well as the external affiliations and continuities within complex, urban contexts.

The avoidance of parametricist taboos and adherence to the dogmas delivers complex order for complex social institutions.

Negative principles (taboos)

  • Avoid rigid forms (lack of malleability)
  • Avoid simple repetition (lack of variety)
  • Avoid collage of isolated, unrelated elements (lack of order)
  • Avoid rigid functional stereotypes
  • Avoid segregative functional zoning

Positive principles (dogmas)

  • All forms must be soft
  • All systems must be differentiated (gradients) and interdependent (correlations)
  • All functions are parametric activity scenarios
  • All activities communicate with each other

The parametricist vanguard: educational institutes across the globe

UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA

UCLA’s department of architecture and urban design is the US headquarters of parametricist Greg Lynn. The inventor of ‘blob architecture’ claims to have developed a new architectural aesthetic via a fresh design sensibility, formed by rhythmic patterns created by the possibilities of infinitesimal geometric calculations.

Architectural Association (AA), London

The AA’s Design Research Laboratory (DRL) was founded in 1998 by AA director Brett Steele and Patrik Schumacher (AJ 21.02.08). The DRL is ‘dedicated to exploring the possibilities of today’s highly distributed digital design networks and tools’. It’s also known as ‘Zaha boot camp’ because of its connection with the founder of parametric urbanism, Zaha Hadid, who often recruits from the DRL.

Southern California Institute of Architecture (SCI-ARC), USA

SCI-Arc is a centre of innovation established to transform technological and cultural paradigms into the practice of architecture. A selection of SCI-Arc research projects were shown earlier this year at the Guggenheim Museum in New York City, during an exhibition called ‘Contemplating the Void: Interventions in the Guggenheim Museum’. Artists, architects and designers were invited to imagine the interventions they would make in Frank Lloyd Wright’s spiralling rotunda. www.sciarc.eduSerena Valietti

Readers' comments (36)

  • and what will be the death of parametricism?:

    superlatives and absolutes

    oh, and materials scarcity.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • What is it about Germans always trying to start the war? Albeit, this time, relatively harmless, let the style just evolve by itself and the time will tell if parametricism has a long term future. You can't force construction industry into this just like that, it will take a long time. I personally think that it is a scary prospect of the industry being hijacked by a bunch of Rhino scripto-nerds who are probably can't draw simple water proofing detail.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • I was going to say that this was a pretty lucid defense of the pretty much indefensible, but the end of the article seemed to trail off a bit. Is it really sensible to say that only parametricism could have produced workable solutions to the Nordpark project?

    I think that there are a number of problems with the premise of this article. Patrik seems to be suggesting that Modernism was a style that we got bored of when in fact it was a style whose limitations began to be understood (cold bridging, leaky rooves, aesthetic poverty in the eyes of lay-people. Modernism was also not really a style; it was an attempt to get to grips with the technological and economic fall out from the industrial revolution. If Parametircsm is a 'proper' (epochal in Patrik's words) style rather than a transitional one (like PoMo or Decon) then it has to be borne of a similar urgent necessity to the one that gave rise to Modernism in my humble opinion. Now I'm no tree hugging eco-warrior, but global warming,as well as the
    scarcity of fuel and materials is the only 'thing' going in my opinion that compares, in terms of urgency and universality, to the industrial revolution which spawned Modernsim (which is neat because the Industrial Revolution and the Sustainability question are two sides of a very big coin). If we accept that this is indeed the case, then we have to look at the likes of BedZED, the works of people like Baumschlager Eberle, Konrad Frey, The Vales and other Sustainability pioneers as the real harbingers of an epochal style. Parametricsm then turns out to be just another style (and I really like the Nordpark scheme actually) best suited to the high end 'Formula 1' type of market. In fact I think that Zaha Hadid should design the next F1 racing venue if they haven't done so already because that seems to me to be a magnificent fit

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • so, floors are still flat, doors are still rectangular w/knobs to open/close, walls still separate spaces, stairs/ramps/elevators/etc. still the ways you get around in "parametric" constructions, toilets/urinals/bidets/sinks are stilll...well, you get the idea.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Will this have been possible without the number crunching power of computers and design software, which is the womb that nurtured this child. It does not respond to any of our pressing realities so therefore will never grow up to be any thing further than fashionable.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • The idea that the concept of "style" needs to be re-habilitated while conceding that it's the primary way the public understands architecture underlines the main problem within the profession. They could care less about the public.

    This article is the most conservative architectural treatis I've recently read in that all the modernist conventions are being upheld. The false dichotomy of either historicism or modernism blows right over the fact that modernism as a style (broadly speaking) is as historicist as any other.

    This guy's attempt to institutionalise whatever work his firm does as the go to style of today is as transparent as the false intellectualism of the early modernists. We are modern, eclectic people, and as such ought to to whatever we feel like. If only architects as professionals would get over their fear of being tradespeople, we might actually produce buildings people care about. It's no wonder European cities have been frozen in time, it's the public's way of acknowledging we can't do anything better. Look back at most architectural commentary of the last 300 years, and the evolution of whatever style was in vogue was always refered to as modern. To me, it's just another used car salesman pitch.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Style is a relatively recent and historical term - it was not, for instance, something that was self-applied by practitioners of classical or baroque architecture as noted above.

    There's no point in claiming a style of today for any reason other than glory or megalomania.

    Architects should simply work in whatever manner is suitable for the project. Historians can worry about style.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Take a chill pill mate.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Parametricsm is a style that even describing it as the style offering diversity and complexity in fact lacks the DIVERSITY. All projects look the same, only architects between themselves could see slightly noticeable differences and appreciate the sexy flow of the curve, or if it was done with nurbs or subdiv. So what? It does not solve any current problems, but provides a dream for the current graduates of a giant 3D printer (that is actually already exists). And by the way Patrick as soon as it is considered a style - it becomes mainstream and you loose your avant-guard status. It is mainstream already who wants the world filled with Zaha Hadid Architects clones?
    And as soon as there was a mention of negative and positive principles seemed like a religious sect of Parametricsm. Scary!

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Thierry BIDET

    Dear Patrik Schumacher,

    "Let the style war begin" seems either offensive to the architects' community or like an impatient attempt to reach "mainstream hegemony" to use your own words.

    Twitter is being recognised as a universal tool of communication because everybody can use it after watching a one minute clip. I am not sure, at the time to write this article, that you gave the chance to every architects and designers to understand how they can design in the so-called parametric style.

    Zaha Hadid herself has been using a rich palette of architectural vocabularies all along her career, so why should we restrain ourselves to one style?

    As historians will notice, the Nordpark Cable Railway combines two very distinctive architectural families, between the aerial part and what happens on the ground. It is a transitional project in term of styles.

    Thierry Bidet

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Hegemony of a new unified style, hegemony of a new unified style?-- We don't need no stinkin' hegemony of a new unified style...
    In our fragmented, all opinions heard society-- Why or how will a new dominant style prevail?...
    Non-sense or wishful thinking for some...

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Cheeky boogers, the photos just looks like my first year post grad work at the Bartlett, circa 1996. I was really taking the mickey when I did it. have you not read Marcos Novak, sir you are way behind the times.
    Paramtrics is that not a description for computer modelling. it is not actually a style. geeez

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • We worked on one of Patrik’s ‘blobs’ a few years ago. The problem was they spent the whole time tweaking isocurves and trying to work out how this weird shape actually functioned as a proper building. It was a humbling moment when the lead architect held up his hands and admitted that after 6 months they still hadn’t worked out how to get into it!
    For more comments on Patrik's article see our eng-gram blog

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Meanwhile, out in the real world, none of my clients could afford the time, energy or cost of a parametric blob tacked on to the side of their house, or stuck in a suburban street... and the planners would probably not like it either.

    But seriously, there are more important things than architectural 'style'. For example, saving the earth by designing buildings which use minimal energy in construction and use. This will eventually lead to a 'style' which will achieve hegemony.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • nice to see that my statements elicited some comments ... some of them deserve a response. I start with Maurice Clarke: the capacity to design a suburban extension for a small budget is not the test-case to decide on the power and pertinence of a contemporary style. A more interesting test case: a large mixed-use complex within a complex urban site, or a new urban sub-centre. In fact the larger and the more complex the design task the more evident and compelling is parametricism’s superiority in comparison with modernism/minimalism or classicism. Thats why we are winning these kinds of projects.
    Your point about minimal energy has a point. In fact parametricism is conceptually geared to take up the ecological agenda. Both in terms of techniques and in terms of sensibility parametricist architecture is eager and able to elaborate adaptive, differentiated responses to the divers environmental parameters, e.g. the building skin is being modulated according to environmental data, i.e. these data are being used as direct input into a script differentiating sunshading elements. (ZHA has been able make this kind of argument effectively and won two competitions for energy research centres.) This answers also Peter Chandler’s point about meeting pressing realities. This is also Michael Badu’s point. I agree with him that to make the claim that an epochal style is in the making requires me to define the challenge that compares, in terms of urgency and universality, to the industrial revolution which spawned Modernsim. However, energy preservation - and the ecological challenge in general - is only one of many factors. It cannot define the new era. What justifies and demands a new style is the socio-economic restructuring that has been going on for the last 35 years. The stable, homogenized society of fordist mass production has given way to the dynamic, multi-cultual network society of today. (Contributing factors: globalisation, micro-electronic revolution a.o). The organisational and communicative capacity of the promoted style and its design repertoire is key. (Environmentally motivated envelope differentiation will also serve to orient users within a lawfully differentiated environment.)
    Thiery Bidet’s point about Zaha’s rich palette of architectural vocabularies is appreciated. However, parametricism continues the historical trajectory of repertoire expansion. Modernism’s repertoire and thus its versatility of formulating pertinent responses to the expanded array of design tasks was hugely increased in comparison with classicism. Parametricism increases this versatility once more. At the same time the new ability to set up associations implies that order and legibility can be maintained and enhanced. That the mastery of the new tools and techniques must be as easy as using twitter should not be expected.
    Its important to be clear that the whole point of positing parametricism as style is to emphasise that the mere acquisition of new tools to play with is no longer the point. The style offers a new approach to architecture on the basis of advanced computational design tools and techniques. However, as a style parametricism involves much more than the mere employment of certain tools and techniques. As a style parametricism is marked by its aims, ambitions, methodological principles, and evaluative criteria, as well as by its characteristic formal repertoire.
    Its true that the concept of style (the way we understand it now) emerged only in the 19th century. But it convinced by making sense of the earlier styles of Gothic, Renaissance, and Baroque. And the concept soon led to the inevitable question formulated in the middle of the 19th century: In which style should we build? This question set up the quest to develop a modern architectural style. This question is still (once more) relevant. The attitude “We are modern, eclectic people, and as such ought to do whatever we feel like” is just pure self-indulgence. Any serious professional has to give a principled account of his/her values and methods. Somebody said: “Architects should simply work in whatever manner is suitable for the project. Historians can worry about style.” This kind pragmatic attitude is quite common. It might be okey for mainstream architects, to the extent to which they can rely on the availability of viable best practice recipes. This task of architecture as discipline is to innovate this best practice repertoire in line with general historical challenges. Ad hoc pragmatism is not enough to achieve this. For this an avant-garde is required that elaborates new principles via the combination of experimentation and theoretical reflection. Here the point is to formulate a new approach, new viable concepts, values, methods, criteria etc. When modernism went into crisis what was until then considered “suitable for the project” was bankrupt. The first reaction was to seek relief in prior architectural history. ... The search for new principles started. I think only recently – in the last 10 years – a new set of principles (concepts, values, methods, criteria etc.) have matured to the point of being able to convince more and more architects and clients.
    Somebody said: “as soon as it is considered a style - it becomes mainstream and you loose your avant-garde status”. That’s great. To win over the mainstream is the ambition of every serious avant-garde movement. Without a broad following the avant-garde turns out not to be an avant-garde at all. Rarefied exclusivity is not at all what we want. We want the company of lots of collaborators and competitors. This is happening: Most young architects I meet want to participate in this collective adventure that is bound to change the urban physiognomy of this planet in the 21st century just as modernism did in the last century.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • It won't last long, we are now in age of frugality, hair shirts and chastity belts.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • How does avoiding segregative functional zoning work with the double loaded corridor at Evelyn Grace Academy? Especially when the architect has segregated one building into three seperate schools each with their own entrance.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Wow, this guy's seriously out of touch. Reminds me of the medieval priest hood that prefered to keep the "masses" ignorant while speaking latin simply to keep the "authority" in their hands. When you ask simple question you get declarative sentences like

    "This task of architecture as discipline is to innovate this best practice repertoire in line with general historical challenges."

    I think Zahahadid's work is interesting, but this pontificating and telling other's their's is the only legitimate perspective while dodging questions... Good luck in you're quest of telling everyone else how to think but I think your "methodological principles, evaluative criteria, and characteristic formal repertoire" are all wrong.

    "Rarefied exclusivity is not at all what we want"
    You want more???

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Well, thanks Daniel that you consider our work intetresting. If I thought another perspective was more pertinent and promising I would shift perspective. How about you? Do you have convictions about what constitutes a meaningful for contemporary architecture? Or are you unsure? (Do whatever we feel like??? What then? Or what people want??? What do they want?) Do you have the opportunity to work according to your own convictions - if you have convictions? Are you able and willing to state the principles that underly your work? Could these just be valid for you? Who is Daniel Morales to have principles all for himself? Which client should by into Daniel Morales' personal perspective???

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • You still can't or won't answer any of my substantive points. First, you hide behind a wall of archispeak, next you devolve into a bunch of psychobable. It's amazing a simpleton like me could so easily get under your skin, so much for your convictions. While I think you're work is interesting (not another brain dead glass box), I think it's ugly, and no amount of words will change that. You should check out Gaudi, now that guy knew his curves. By the way, it's just an opinion, not personal. As long as someone is buying what you're selling, onward and forward!

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Has Patrik Schumacher really thought about the implications of his crusade?

    Like any style its progenitors are the architects of their own eventual destruction. as this style becomes adopted and bastardised by every practice wishing to be 'down with the kids' a seemingly never ending stream of built horrors will be foisted onto a world already highly suspicious of architects and their messianic bent.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Well, I must say I sincerely appreciate the candor and commitment that Shumacher brings to this dialogue online (if not what at times reads as unnecessary bombast in the original text). I hope that he stays with it, because this is an unusual opportunity to address a persistent gap in discussions around parametrically-driven design practice. What for me is often troubling, aside from a robust technophilia that I see in much discussion of parametric design practices, is the glaring lack of discussion of parameters themselves.
    What are the parameters of consequence today? What matters, and at what service is geometry beyond its capacities for adaptation to diverse conditions?
    If we accept Schumacher's assertions about style and Parametricism - which to my mind still rely uncomfortably on optimization of processes (albeit new kinds of optimization, still a faith in absolutes) - we are more beholden than ever to assert what are the parameters by which to evaluate results. An example: Shumacher rightly and evenly points out a difference from use of Twitter, but ours is a built environment marked more and more by interaction with embedded forms of computing. These produce new protocols of movement and understandings of boundary, of material culture, of so much that would be uneasy to parametricize according to current thinking. How are we to welcome in the vital role of these and other fault lines in our conception of space?

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • One of the problem of this thesis is that it is very heavily relies on formal approach. Of course architecture has a form and always will but it is so much more than that. I think Parametricism would have been taken more seriously if it was formulated differently but even Dogmas and Taboos illustrate its definition of form (fluid form and so on). Perhaps if it was defining performance of fluid forms and their positive influence on environment and ecology, but because it just defines the form (the way it should be modeled and what form does not deserve to be a part of this movement) that is why it is taken so sceptically. And if you prohibit something like Taboos - how is this style will revolve over time? By prohibiting formal or organizational approaches different from originally defined is the dead end - no future to that style. Every revolution starts with breaking the rules, maybe instead of prohibiting something it should be left open ended and see if something greater will emerge over time. You will never be known as the last architect of the universe but maybe one of the father of parametricism. I believe in Performance not form (though it is hard not to be formal as aesthetic driven project creates preconceived final form preventing the truly new and better architecture to become).

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Arboreal Architecture

    If style “denotes the unity of the difference between… architectural epochs” it is not parametrics but rather the current exploration of organic form made possible by Rhino, Maya and other software that is the unifying factor. The extent to which that form is derived from input parameters or has a meaningful performance on any output parameters is somewhat more in doubt. The “vanguard: educational institutes across the globe” are oddly limited to London and Los Angeles but (having lived in both cities and attended all the schools in some way) my experience has been that sculptural organicism currently prevails at the expense of deeper critique of the input or output parameters. We are not yet operating in either a style or a “paradigm” deserving of the name parametricism.

    Most of the work coming out of those schools, whilst often exquisitely beautiful, is lacking in rigorous questioning of what parameters the architecture could engage with and what kind of performance the building could offer them in return. Our obsession with complex 3D modelling tools is still driving the forms we make rather than allowing us to really create architecture that is as responsive to its conditions (programmatic, environmental etc.) as it seems. We can make a roof that appears to be as responsive as a tree canopy but in fact is only static sculpture, not embedded within a complex ecology.

    In our practice we endeavour to use form and material to engage with parameters such as light, heat, structure and program to generate genuine spatial and ecological performance as a result, even if that result is not as “blobby” or “swoopy” as we might have thought. As Michael Badu noted in his comment, the sustainable energy crisis is the stronger catalyst for change in architecture but we don’t believe it will be achieved by pitting the style of BedZED against the style of Zaha and indeed style may not be a useful term for the argument at all. Values, techniques and performance are better terms to advance the argument. The new kinds of values that drive sustainability must be brought to bear in the design process and should no longer be seen as only cramping the style of the formalist architecture. These values, applied to parametric techniques, aimed at performance rather than mere sculpture can create the kind of architecture that we are excited about and that we hope might retrospectively be observed as a unifying difference in architecture.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • First of all i think that most of the negative responses to this article came because of its title wich is a bit bombastic.

    Then, I would like to point out that there is a tendency for a misconception relating the formal result of a parametric design process. The fact that Mr Patrick Schumacher and Zaha Hadid are leaning towards organic, blob-like architectural shapes, does `nt mean it is the only aproach a parametric design should follow. With the appropriated constraints and algorithms you can obtain any kind of formal result including box-like shapes and straight paths and surfaces. However the true paradigm of this new technology and philosophy does not stand in the formal result as a "style" but in the whole process of developing a form as a result of different contextual and functional constraints.

    As a reference to this point of view i would like to emphasize the importance of "emergence" as a concept wich exists all over in nature. It is a property of simple, inividual elements/processes to asociate themselves and create complex and intelligent structures/behaviors (See the Swarm Intelligence concept) This behavior can be identified in the whole generative process of developing parametric shapes. Here, the form is the result of the cumulative processes.

    By saying this i dont want to be characterizes as being technofob nor technophil. I Try to always remain skeptical or at least ponderate and i want to ask you something:

    Isn`t this new contextual and parametric aproach a kind of neo-functionalism?
    Could it be be the implementation of the true concept of "form follows function" but above the formal ideology of modernism, instead as a form wich reacts parametrically to contextual, functional and cultural constraints?

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Style Wars (intro text crawls over superstudio grid to the tune of baby elephant walk)

    It is a period of civil war. Internet bozos, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Parametric Empire. During the battle, the bozos managed to steal secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the Parametric Blob, a pseudo theory with enough jargon and bombast to destroy an entire comments thread. Pursued by the Empire's sinister industry contacts, Underpaid Part I races home aboard her rickety tumblr, custodian of the stolen plans that can save her people and restore freedom to the galaxy...

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • I have written a response to Mr. Schumacher's article on my blog:

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • "Parametric" -- just the latest trendy name for what looks like an blobby update on the tired old all-controlling mega-structural approach.

    You know, the one where we all told to comply with the singular dictatorial vision of the "artist-architect-masterplanner" who functions in said stylistic capacity as nothing more than the lock-stepping lap dog of global capitalism.

    Millennial, self-serving nonsense that has absolutely no relevance to the real needs of people.

    No thanks; nice try.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • "Metaballs" is about right for a style title.

    Grow up Patrick. This kind of "intellectuality" went out with Jean-Paul Sartre. Or something.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Arthur Mani

    Hi Everyone,
    Parametricism refers directly to a new set of tools which has been developed in recent years and became more user friendly with the Grasshopper plugin for Rhinoceros. For the purists, parametric will only refer to a specific mathematical equation. It is very surprising that an Architect would write a manifesto based on a tool. Should we also talk about "Tracingpaperism" or even "Autocadism" throughout architectural history? Computers in general or more specifically parametric software or even computer programming made our lives as architects much easier: We can now change an entire set of drawings with a simple click. These tools liberated forms which would have been so painful to build in the past.
    Frank Gehry and Zaha Hadid did not start their careers on computers even though they both revolutionized its use in Architecture. Both of them had a vision of what architecture could be. In a simplistic manner, Gehry wanted to build a giant fish and Hadid said no to the straight angles. Computers resolved both of these desires and created an extraordinary potential for young architects like me who also have wild dreams. Nevertheless I do not want to lock myself into a box which is basically a tool which will be outdated in little time.
    Mister Schumacher, why is there a need to create a new Manifesto?
    Have Architect not hurt themselves enough with other ...ists?
    Many thanks for a great debate,

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • The research carried out in this field, by schumacher and many others, has unquestionably touched on very interesting and potentially important areas of the contemporary city. It is important to understand the position of parametrics away from the glossy renders that invariably accompany these articles. As a diploma student at the AA, I recently attended the DRL juries at the AA- a studio that Mr Schumacher leads, and was heartened to see the incredibly diverse and rich methods and sensibilities that the students are pursuing, with incredibly exciting results. However, in spite of this richness, the work arrives at (as does much of the work done by the practicing avant garde) at these seductive white renders.

    This incredible paradox of, on the one hand, huge progress and enlightened research and on the other a complete lack of imagination in terms of the potentials of this work is very worrying to me. I feel this gap comes from an obvious, and very dangerous, discrepancy between the marginalized position of the architect and the multiple actors and agents that actually create our cities- business, tycoons, developers, NGOs, retail giants etc. It is only when we take a position of modesty in this sense that we can reassess our agency, as architects, within the production of the city (a move that would question the very concept of the 'avant garde'). In this context, the seductive, complex forms that parametricism currently produces (which, i believe, is but one of its potentials) only serve to make architects more peripheral and marginalized in the practice of designing and planning our cities.

    As such, I would encourage Mr Schumacher to expand, in the very spirit of 'research', his investigations to address the political and social context of this work. This also requires the academic community to take responsibility for the production of students with a 'toolbox' of scripts leaving to join practices with rather less rigour and creative capacity than there might be at Zaha Hadid Architects.



    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • david walters

    In all this commentary I couldn't find any mention of the city or urban form and coherence for neighborhoods etc . . . The implications of this renewed object fetish are worrying for urbanism as nobody seems to care much about it, or the fundamental notion of public space. Do we really want to promote a city of curvy wavy forms (OK in moderation) with no spatial coherence between them -- a discourse solely about objects? Where is public space in all this debate? Architects have made this fundamental error once before . . . .

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Compare the Olympic Aquatics centre and the Velodrome:

    - both use parametric models to generate their form
    - both respond to the aesthetics of the sport contained within by creating a sculpted, double curved form

    However one uses 12m high trusses as opposed to the other, which only uses 25mm cables in tension in order to achieve its span. One is environmentally responsive whereas the other is gratuitous form making.

    How can ZHA justify designing solely on the basis of appearance when clearly there are more pressing issues at stake such as sustainability?

    Patrick - your firm specialises in making shapes. Whether or not they respond to the concerns of their users or the environment is secondary.
    As such they are associated with a host of other failed movements in architecture, such as postmodern historicism.

    This is where the style wars end.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • David, you have made a mistake. You have applied a motive to the fact that Patrick is not communicating effectively with you. I can’t find a reason for the intellectual leap, from not being able to understand, to believing Schumacher is deliberately attempting to make his writing not understandable.
    I think confusion is arising from the disconnect between ZHA’s built works, and the utopian ideal Schumacher seems to suggest.
    One in which every point in a building is placed in its optimal position in three dimensional space. This position determined by measured factors, either site specific climate data or functional criteria for example. This is an attempt to determine the platonic ‘ideal’ building for each site and use. Often, though not always, such a design methodology would produce curvilinear forms, as we can see from the shapes of plants for example, which through optimisation of 3d form determined by light, structural integrity etc, adopt sinuous shapes.
    ZHA’s existing built works are unfortunately just a vanguard of this design METHOD, (rather than style) as, as yet they have only the appearance of having been designed in such a way. (I say appearance as I see little evidence, that each curve or volume in any current ZHA building is determined by real world criteria. For example a fluid form roof to optimise air circulation or whatever else.
    This does not mean that this methodology has no value. However I see the greatest barrier to its adoption as the reality of the global 2012 construction industry, which is optimised and designed around, mainly rectilinear forms. Therefore, what may technically be an optimal building is likely to offset its benefits via greater construction and design costs (design costs until, one day a computer can analyse every measurable parameter of a site, and use, and so determine by itself an optimised 3d form). This is not the optimal architecture of today, but it may be that of the future.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Luca Bacilieri

    Dear Patrik Schumacher

    First pleas excuse my poor english.
    I really like your work, both theoreticly and in real life. I was wundering what your oppinion is on other arcitects like Santiago Calatrava, which don't use parametricism in there designs, but his buildings are in my eyes allsow very beautiful.
    The second Question:
    Do you see any danger in parametricism, if these principals are used by lets say not so good trained architects.

    Luca Bacilieri

    Unsuitable or offensive?

  • Dear Mr. Schumacher,

    Please Calm Down! Parametricism is a concession to the software. Styles are dead. Why limit our formal language? Good luck imposing your ways upon the world.

    Unsuitable or offensive?

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

The searchable digital buildings archive with drawings from more than 1,500 projects

AJ newsletters