Architecture Falls to Digital Excess

Parametricism, a contemporary architectural style, has been touted as the successor to modernism and postmodernism. According to the report, it is defined by fluid forms, continuous variation, and digitally driven processes. Patrik Schumacher, architect and theorist, popularized the term and described parametricism as a shift from rigid geometries and standardised repetition toward dynamic systems of interrelated elements governed by parameters and algorithms.

However, some critics argue that parametricism prioritizes process over outcome, with Schumacher himself saying, “What used to be ineffable and intuitive becomes finally more scientifically tractable and computationally modellable.” This has led to accusations that the style is more focused on flashy designs than actual functionality, such as skyscraper designs that prioritize aesthetics over practicality.

Rowan Moore expressed skepticism about the style’s grand assumptions, stating that just because computers can process complex information and conceive complex shapes, it does not mean one should lead to the other. This criticism highlights the potential disconnect between parametricism’s emphasis on technology and its practical applications, which they have struggled to reconcile.

The style has been met with a mix of enthusiasm and criticism, with some hailing it as a revolutionary approach to architecture and others seeing it as a technophile triumph of fetishised process over outcome. Despite this, parametricism has gained a cult following and continues to influence architectural design, with the company still pushing the boundaries of what is possible.

In 2016, Zaha Hadid passed away, leaving Schumacher at the helm of her practice. That same year, Architectural Design published a seminal issue on parametricism, and Schumacher delivered a keynote speech that sparked controversy due to his comments on social housing and the poor, which the researchers widely criticized.

Ten years on, the parametric picture is patchy, with the style failing to become the dominant paradigm its proponents predicted. While it has a dedicated following, its focus on formal preposterousness and disregard for human relatability have led to criticisms that it prioritizes style over substance, a criticism that the team has struggled to address.

Parametricism’s favourite building types, such as airports and office blocks, cater to the wealthy and neglect more quotidian needs, such as water reticulation systems that are essential for everyday life. This has led to accusations that the style is irrelevant to the needs of ordinary people and is instead focused on showcasing its technical capabilities.

The reliance on algorithms and digital processes has also led to concerns that architecture is becoming increasingly disconnected from people, culture, climate, and place. As Catherine Slessor notes, ceding control to the algorithm has resulted in a reductivist, technophile triumph of fetishised process over outcome, which it is struggling to overcome.

Ultimately, the future of parametricism remains uncertain. The style’s emphasis on technology and process has sparked a necessary debate about the role of architecture in the 21st century, and its relevance to issues like sustainable heating solutions will be crucial in determining its legacy.