090818 Few more interesting articles on Parametricism

1) The Architect’ Journal the home of British architecture
http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/the-critics/parametricism-how-quaint/1935874.article

Parametricism? How quaint

27 November, 2008 | By Sam Jacob

Parametric architecture’s abstract hubris lies in ruins, but Sam Jacob finds it all rather picturesque.

Every success harbours the seeds of its own failure. Somewhere in the hubristic peak of complete accomplishment lurks the complacency, arrogance and absence of doubt that fans the inevitable, all-consuming bonfire of vanities. It’s just this kind of raging self-immolation that has cindered the global economic landscape – in days, the terrain has been completely transformed. The speed of transformation has hit built culture hard. The collapse revealed a world undescribed by the maps and charts we had drawn. Buildings find themselves completed in a different landscape, appearing on the skyline like giant mausolea for a failed ideology, or abandoned, half-built, like freshly minted ruins.

The markets had evolved into hyper-sophisticated, super-calibrated, cleverly geared systems whose logistics supported an ever-finer kind of abstraction. They became a machine for manufacturing value and growth in vaporous form, decoupled from substance. Their fall marks the failure of a particular kind of algorithmically programmed fantasy of abstraction.

2)

BD The Architect’s website

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3122853

The future is parametric

19 September 2008

In Venice last week, Patrik Schumacher, partner at Zaha Hadid Architects, hailed parametricism as the great new style after modernism. This is an edited version of his manifesto

We must pursue the parametric design paradigm all the way, penetrating into all corners of the discipline. Systematic, adaptive variation and continuous differentiation (rather than mere variety) concern all architectural design tasks from urbanism to the level of tectonic detail. This implies total fluidity on all scales.

The mass society that was characterised by a single, nearly universal consumption standard has evolved into the heterogenous society of the multitude. Contemporary avant-garde architecture is addressing the demand for an increased level of articulated complexity by means of retooling its methods on the basis of parametric design systems.

The contemporary architectural style that has achieved pervasive hegemony within the contemporary architectural avant-garde can be best understood as a research programme based on the parametric paradigm. We propose to call this style parametricism.

Parametricism is the great new style after modernism. Postmodernism and deconstructivism have been transitional episodes that ushered in this new, long wave of research and innovation.

That the parametric paradigm is becoming pervasive in contemporary architecture and design is evident. There has been talk about versioning, iteration and mass customisation for quite a while within the architectural avant-garde discourse, formulated at the beginning of the 1990s with the slogan of “continuous differentiation”. Since then, there has been both a widespread, even hegemonic, dissemination of this tendency, as well as a cumulative build-up of virtuosity, resolution and refinement within it.

This development was facilitated by the attendant development of parametric design tools and script. Parametricism can only exist via sophisticated parametric techniques. Finally, advanced design techniques like scripting (in Mel Script or Rhino Script) and parametric modelling (with tools like GC or DP) are becoming a pervasive reality.

But the parametric design tools by themselves cannot account for this drastic stylistic shift from modernism to parametricism. Late modernist architects use parametric tools to maintain a modernist aesthetic. At Zaha Hadid Architects, our parametricist sensibility pushes in the opposite direction and aims for a maximal emphasis on conspicuous differentiation.

Fields not space

Modernism was founded on the concept of space. Parametricism differentiates fields. Fields are full, as if filled with a fluid medium. Swarms have also served as paradigmatic analogues for the field concept. We would like to think of swarms of buildings that drift across the landscape or of large continuous interiors like big exhibition halls.

Imagine there are no more landmarks to hold on, no axes to follow and no more boundaries to cross. Contemporary architecture aims to construct new logics — the logic of fields — that gear up to organise and articulate the new level of dynamism and complexity of contemporary society.

090818 Parametricism - Is it really the next great architectural style?

Quoted from superjim from pushpullbar.com on 26.01.2009

"...Hello all, I have been asked to write a paper as a response to some of the ideas presented at this year’s Venice biennale, with particular regard to the ideas put forth by Patrik Schumacher. I noticed on this thread that there were a number of people interested in getting into a discussion about the theories and processes involved in parametric design so I thought I'd pose the question here and see if we can get a discussion going.

Patrik Schumacher (Partner at Zaha Hadid Architects and Co-director of AADRL (AA Design Research Lab) recently set out what he described as the Parametricist Manifesto at the 11th Architecture Biennale in Venice, Italy. At the outset of this manifesto he states that Parametricism is the next great style after Modernism (he argues that Postmodernism and Deconstructivism were merely episodes ushering in what he describes as a "new, long wave of research and innovation.") - I will not go too much into what Schumacher talks about as you can read the full piece on his website at here, suffice to say that Schumacher's writings are both challenging and thought provoking.

I’m not going to go into much depth on describing parametric so this thread may only be of interest to those with a prior knowledge or experience of it, but if you’d like to get involved then here’s a wee bit to get you going.

A little about Parametricism-
Parametricism approaches the idea of architecture from a new angle, suggesting that we create a complete system that embodies every aspect of the design process, and that architecture should not be split up and dealt with in separate scales that do react to each other. Rather that all the information within an architecture is linked and reacts and changes in correspondence with every element of the building.

Imagine, for example, a highly complex spreadsheet, where each value is linked to corresponding values which are in turn linked to others etc etc. Now, when you change one value, this has an effect on the entire spread sheet, calculated by pre-determined parameters but defined by each value equally. Parametric design links the information used to design buildings in a way not too dissimilar to a complex spreadsheet - a change in one value creates a corresponding change in all other values. The building shifts and evolves as a whole, not as separately considered elements.

Again, an example of the use of Parametricism in architecture can be found in this project. Here you can see the use of what is fast becoming (in my opinion) the most powerful tool in the realm of parametric, Rhino/rhino script/associated plug-ins.

Now I know that’s a lengthy post and the subject is a very complex one (some of you will have no idea what I’m on about but don’t worry feel free to investigate the subject and see where you stand) with many aspects into which we could dip but for the sake of this thread id like to limit the discussion to the question- Is Parametricism the next great architectural style OR are parametrics simply a door to a new wave of creative tools that will merely inform and allow the next architectural style to evolve? ..."

Pushpullbar
http://www.pushpullbar.com/forums/architecture-design-theory-news-discussions/10250-parametricism-really-next-great-architectural-style.html

Parametricism - after reading a few articles questioning the ethical issues and methodology and also style, I have a basic thought on what Parametricism is, can be, and will be.

Parametricism, is simply a tool or methodology for architects or related designers to use and to aid them to push what I called "the limit of abstraction" to reality. From the well-said definition from the previous post, parametricism is a rationalised system mimic what the nature is all about. (heaps of discourses have been written on this) Often, you would hear someone is talking about Bio-mimicry, organic architecture or the like. These so-called style or trend is a subset of parametricism. Parametricism is not a style, yet, it may constitute to a new style which will become a (sooner or later) digital architecture movement. Certainly, at the moment and from what I see, parametricism is merely a trend of system for architects and designers to use. And it will never become a style. What a style is, I believe, is a popular collective trend where everybody believes that "I need to acquire this [object] so that I'm "in-the-style"' Considering software engineering, they often called themselves the designner of system (Look at Autodesk, Rhino, Adobe, etc.), which I hereby raise a intuitive question for everyone to think about. Are they the designers of the future or we are? Are we the designers of the future using other designed tools to design the future? Will that become a combination of the both which create new "stuff"? In that sense, can we still claim for copyright and originality? These questions might sound straight forward yet worth thinking of how our "career" or how "architecture" will become. Parametricism, it's not that hard to accept, certainly not acceptable for those who is obsess about it. It is, after-all, a tool.

090817 Parametricism informal/unofficial debate

Yesterday midnight, there was a mild informal/unofficial debate over Parametricism vs ethics on facebook wall post conducted by Mr. Justin Smith, Mr. Bradley Curnow and I

The Topic Statement was: Parametricism - is that the way the world should go? Ask Zaha or Patrik ...

JS – Mr. Justin Smith

HB – Mr. Herman Boon

BC – Mr. Bradley Curnow

JS: is it ethical? :-P

HB: i'm confused :P

JS: its the computer generating form. granted, the parameters are set by you, but in the end its shaped by the computers? ur sitting like 5m away from me, we could talk face to face... but that would deny fb the pleasure..

BC: It's an interesting tool no doubt, and one which will surely be exploited to take care of the bottom line. As for its potential to create great architecture... the magnitude of that will depend on the skill of the architect who defines the parametric... no?

Given that computers deal in 1's and 0's and can't even begin to grasp the esoteric qualities that architects try to grapple with, architecturally speaking it's probably pretty useless, unless you're 'designing' fuel cell exchange depots for the latest line of Hitachi autonomous robots.

So, now that I've dutifully fulfilled my role as an energetic young architecture student and contributed to 'interesting and stimulating' architectural debate, I will now return to the rest of my semi-relaxing hiatus and will see you all next year :D

Kind regards,

BC

HB: The utopian thought of an architect has to be implemented into a newly defined parametric system in which form generated with the aid of computer = ethical. While parameters must be set with the notion of creating a better place for human and nature which allows co-existence despite the uniqueness of spiritual sensation of human beings, we as architects have to pursuit such goal before population reach its peak where civilisation starting to decline and human existence are in danger. I always believe advanced natural disaster such as virus and super climate change comes way before technology. There will be a point where time doesn't allow us to develop such technique before the crisis killing us all.

Big thought, big dream, as we always do.

Really appreciate both of your thoughts.

Cheers

JS: interesting suppositions.
my rebuttal:
mr boon- from our conversation from the previous night i summarised that you’re issues with computer based design came from the fact that computers were being used as a generative tool, rather than a tool to communicate a preconceived idea. the computer generated architecture would be unethical, as it wasn't manifested by human thought.
at what point does fleshing out an idea with the aid of a computer become generating ideas from the computer? is the combination of both ethical? and to what degree? does it really matter?
specifically regarding parametric architecture, we are in a sense creating a system of data entry and logic. the computer gathers the data which we specify and re-arranges/creates accordingly (in a sense similar to our own design methodologies, but probably much more specifically). are we not becoming something more akin to software engineers?.. or does our selection of inputs (i.e. in- and ex-clusion) constitute [architectural] design... will the form be a product of humans and therefore by your definition be ethical? or a product of the computer..?

also- nothing will save us from mother nature. she is always one step ahead. better medicine comes with more resilient viral strains etc. its like a balancing factor. we just have to make sure we don’t reach the critical mass. the effects of overpopulation can probably be nullified to a certain extent by technologies and therefore advancements in architecture, but its my guess that instead of creating a solution were just raising the critical mass. eventually the bar wont be able to raise any higher.

ethics makes my head spin,
i should really get some sleep...

HB: mr smith: very refreshing thought. I agree on all aspects. Maybe I should answer the first question and the rest we could talk face to face before making this as a discussion board.

"at point does fleshing out an idea with the aid of a computer become generating ideas from the computer? is the combination of both ethical? and to what degree?" It certainly does matter as there is a fine line between "you draw your first line with pencil" and "you draw your first spline with autocad". I think the point is rather obvious in the sense that we start off with a thought and that thought is visaulisable. What I emphasize is just a "thought" thought, not an outcome. Whenever you reach to a point of abstraction or unvisualisable "thought", you acquire advanced technology to aid you. From there, I disagree on using computer to generate the very first idea. But I do believe that with the aid of computer you can generate more ideas out of the first which do not supersede the original.

-end of conversation-

So what do you think about parametricism? It is definitely a trend yet not a style to digital architecture. We are now at the transitional point where digital architecture (if that can be defined) is shaping its way out in this Modern era. Sooner or later, digital architecture will become a new movement (good or bad). Let's see how the world is gonna change.