Style and the Pretense of 'Parametric' Architecture

'Algorithmic Housing' project in Shanghai by Marcin Pilsniak:
an exercise in 'parametric' frivolity

The word style is a pariah within the realm of high architectural design. Mention the word in any self-respecting design school and you are most likely to be mocked with derision. After all, an aspiring designer with cutting-edge ideas should not be held slave by the tyranny of history. Unfortunately, the disconnect between how the public versus design professionals see and evaluate architecture directly undermines the ability of the architecture profession to be understood or respected in a meaningful way.

In a recent piece for The Architects’ Journal, architect Patrik Schumacher attempts to counteract this disconnect by fully embracing the notion of style and acknowledging that outside of the design professions, style is ‘virtually the only category through which architecture is observed and recognized.’ Schumacher, a partner at Zaha Hadid Architects, uses this notion to argue in favor a new style dubbed parametricism. He proclaims, “Parametricism finally offers a credible, sustainable answer to the drawn-out crisis of modernism that resulted in 25 years of stylistic searching.”

The ‘25 years of stylistic searching’ refers to the period dominated by the reactionary architectural movements post-modernism and deconstructivism. Schumacher argues that these were not styles per se but rather ‘transitional episodes.’ This is his first mistake. However short-lived post-modernism and deconstructivism were, both movements share particular characteristics that can be classified as a style. His second mistake is to arrogantly assert that parametricism will somehow be above these two in its ability to create a ‘hegemonic unified style’.

There are many troubling things about parametricism, not the least of which being that most of the products of this particular style are aesthetically egregious. Yet the notion of parametricism, when thought of as a process rather than a style, is not inherently a bad thing. As a matter of fact, parametrics, or the definition of systems which are based on relationships, is quickly becoming a powerful tool for architects to design buildings faster and more efficiently than ever before.

But in his article, Schumacher is not talking about parametricism as a process but rather explicitly propagating a new type of aesthetic expression that is made possible by the power of computer modeling software. Exploiting technology to create new forms might seem revolutionary on the surface, but without broader social aims the movement is likely to quickly fall out of fashion.

A Modern History of Architectural Style

In his revolutionary 1908 essay, Ornament and Crime, Vienna architect Adolf Loos declared that architectural ornamentation was nothing short of a criminal act. He claimed that the truly modern man had no use for superfluous decoration on his home or dress, and compared architectural ornamentation to the tattoos of ‘degenerates and criminals’. Loos was of course rallying against the popular architectural style of the time, Art Nouveau.

With Ornament and Crime, Loos set the tone for the next century of architectural design. His message reached far and wide, influencing everyone from members of the Bauhaus to California-based immigrant architects Rudolph Schindler and Richard Neutra (both of whom happened to be students of Loos back in their native Austria). This new class of architecture, characterized by clean lines, right angles, smooth surfaces and neutral colors, came to be known as modern architecture.

Yet the first participants in the new modern style of architecture did not consider it a style at all, but rather an ideological movement (‘modern-ism’) – a complete rejection of the historical notion of ‘style’. Why should say, a house, be bound to the laws of architectural history when it could instead be, as Le Corbusier famously said, a ‘machine for living in’? The social agenda of the Modernists not only included a rejection of style, but also emphasized a new way of living for the masses. According to the Modernists, the key to living an enlightened existence was to put faith into the religion of technology.

By the latter half of the 20^th Century, a backlash against the purist dogma of modernism emerged. Beginning with Jane Jacobs’ 1961 extraordinary treatise against the pitfalls of modern urban planning, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, she not only attacked the destructive policies of development but also the dehumanizing architecture of Le Corbusier-inspired public housing projects. Following in 1966, American architect Robert Venturi released his ‘gentle manifesto’, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture; a refutation of ‘the puritanically moral language of orthodox Modern architecture.’

Venturi’s manifesto is in direct contrast to Loos’s Ornament and Crime. Where Loos derided ornamentation, Venturi celebrated it. Venturi went a step further in 1972 when he released Learning from Las Vegas along with his collaborators Denise Scott Brown and Steven Izenour. Learning was a major breakthrough in architectural discourse as it signaled a paradigm shift away from the archetypal Modern architect as ‘omnipotent creator’ peering down at his unenlightened subjects from the ivory tower. Instead, Venturi and company courageously embodied a contrarian attitude by discovering the crass banality of American life in the Mojave Desert boomtown.

Venturi’s explorations led to what would later be known as post-modern architecture. The related movement, broadly referred to as post-modernism, permeated not only architecture but other disciplines as well (art, fashion, cinema, literature, philosophy, etc…) and sought to come to terms with the condition of ‘late-capitalism’. In other words, post-modernism embraced plurality, subjectivity, and uncertainty as truths (whereas under the Modernist paradigm, ‘technology and progress’ were the only truths).

Although today the world arguably remains in a state of postmodernity, the architectural community has since rejected the post-modern mantra. It seems that despite the attempts of Venturi and others to reconnect architectural expression with the common language of man (in contrast to the cold, geometric abstractions of modernism), consensus regarding post-modern architecture is that it was a collective error in stylistic and aesthetic judgment. This is too bad, as post-modernism is now judged within architectural circles as an unfortunate ‘style’ rather than a useful method to analyze the communicative and symbolic capabilities of architecture.

Following post-modernism, an unapologetically cynical style of architecture emerged. Deconstructivism did not do much to enhance the quality of architectural dialogue among the public but rather established a new basis for formal genesis: the ‘chaotic state of a globalized world’. Like its stylistic older brother, post-modernism, deconstructivism looked to define a novel architectural language. Practiced by architects such as Daniel Libeskind, Zaha Hadid, Bernard Tschumi and Peter Eisenman, deconstructivist architecture is characterized by its jutted angles, fragmented appearance and rough sculptural qualities.

UFA-Cinema Center in Dresden, Germany by Coop Himmelb(l)au:
Typical example of deconstructivist architecture

Parametricism: A Continuation of Deconstructivism

In the end, post-modernism and deconstructivisim are two sides of the same architectural coin. Both sought to counteract the aesthetic poverty and failed social agenda of modernism. Parametricism is not much different from deconstructivism in its disorderly physical appearance. Yet instead of the tilted planes and sharp angles of deconstructivism, parametric architecture takes on a ‘blob-like’ formal expression. The supposed social benefits of both styles are not much different either. As Schumacher explains in his article:

“Parametricism aims to organize and articulate the increasing diversity and complexity of social institutions and life processes within the most advanced centre of post-Fordist network society.”

It’s a nice sound bite for sure, but contradictory in its execution. Certainly, especially in the Western world, we are living in an evolving ‘post-Fordist network society’. This does not mean we need to make all of our new buildings look like blobs, though. If anything, ‘network society’ is unsympathetic to architectural form and renders it meaningless. What does it matter if we live on the 75^th floor of a crystalline skyscraper in Dubai or a cookie-cutter suburban home in Atlanta, as long as we are digitally connected? 

Strangely enough, while the physical form of buildings has become ever more meaningless in our network society, the tools which we use to connect have taken on a more prominent role on fulfilling our design needs. Think of the stylish mobile phones, the iPads- these gadgets satisfy the design niche of representing current social zeitgeist better than a piece of architecture ever could.

Disrespectful of Reality, Better Suited for Virtual Worlds

Given that there is no social need for parametricism as a new 'epochal style,' is there any other value that these type of designs can provide? For wealthy developers looking to awe the public with unconventional buildings, the parametric blobs will most likely achieve a purpose. But after the initial shock of seeing something different, the public will realize just how hideous and useless these creations are and the style will quickly lose favor. Thankfully, parametricism will probably never become prolific within the built environment due to the exponential costs of constructing such unconventional forms. In fact, to this day the majority of parametric designs are confined to the realm of ‘paper architecture’, with few built works aside from small pavilions and art installations.

'Blob Wall' - a parametric art installation by architect Greg Lynn

Parametricism is also disrespectful of cities. Examining various renderings of proposals for parametric designs for infill projects will confirm this. Anti-contextual and disregarding classic architectural principals such as scale and proportion, parametric designs are better suited for the virtual worlds of video games and science-fiction movies. Just because we have the software to produce buildings that look like the ‘pods’ from The Matrix does not mean that we should build them.

Desperately Seeking Relevance in an Indifferent World

Credit should be given to Mr. Schumacher for being bold enough to be one of the first to declare parametricism as a legitimate style. And to be sure, the fact that top architecture schools around the world have adopted the parametric mantra adds some legitimacy to his argument. Ultimately though, his cause ends up missing the mark. Instead of engaging with the real world tackling relevant issues, Schumacher continues the tradition of myopic insularity within the avant-garde circles of the architectural profession.

While post-modernism as a style is no longer popular, the lessons of Venturi and the Postmodernists are now more pertinent than ever. The world is increasingly globalized and absolutes are still giving way to ever-more pluralism. Schumacher directly refutes this reality and even claims that parametricism must ‘combat stylistic pluralism.’ He continues by stating:

“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.”

Schumacher never explains why ‘pragmatic modernism with a slightly enriched palette’ is inferior to parametricism. He assumes that it is inferior because it builds upon lessons of the past and is not totally new and flamboyant. But in fact some of the finest architecture being built today is by architects whose work could be described as minimalist. Architects like Peter Zumthor, Tadao Ando, Kengo Kuma, and David Chipperfield design buildings that are formally understated, yet rich in materiality and spatial experience. They rely on classic design principles and a modern vocabulary to create buildings that appropriately respond to context while at the same time remain dignified and novel without resorting to gimmicks.

If anything, Schumacher’s article is timely as it represents the death rattle of the architecture profession as it is now conceived. To posit that parametricism is the ‘next big thing’ is nothing more than a poorly-veiled attempt at desperately seeking relevance and recognition in a world indifferent to the feelings of the architect. As the past 2-3 years of global economic slowdown has clearly demonstrated, the architecture profession and the livelihood of its practitioners are inextricably tied to the state of global financial systems. Coincidentally, the development of parametricism as a style took place during a time when economies were flush with credit– possibly giving the false impression that such creations would have the unlimited budgets to be built someday.

With the exception of a few Middle East Sheikdoms and to an increasingly lesser extent, China, the potential market for parametric architecture is fairly limited. This is not to say that the style will die-out overnight. Rather, parametricism is likely to continue being promoted in architecture schools as cutting-edge for a few more years before the trend wears itself out. Until then, Schumacher and his ilk would be better suited by spending their time preparing for a career change to video game design or developing a Second Life avatar.

Schumacher ends his piece by proclaiming, "Parametricism is ready to go mainstream. The style war has begun." What he doesn't realize yet is that he has already lost the war.