In the ever-evolving world of architecture, the concept of parametricism has sparked intriguing debates. Personally, I find it fascinating how this style, once hailed as the 'great new style after modernism,' has now become a subject of scrutiny and critique. The relationship between architecture and capitalism, a cornerstone of parametricism's premise, seems to have crumbled, leaving us with a style that struggles to find its place in the contemporary world.
The Rise and Fall of Parametricism
Patrik Schumacher's Parametricist Manifesto, presented at the 2008 Venice Architecture Biennale, proclaimed parametricism as the avant-garde of architectural innovation. However, from my perspective, Schumacher's manifesto falls short in capturing the essence of his own project. By positioning parametricism within the avant-garde, he aligns it with a lineage of formal experimentation, but his argument takes a modernist turn, emphasizing the style's relevance to contemporary capitalist development.
The distinction between 'modernism' and 'avant-garde' is crucial here. While modernist architects sought to align architecture with modern industry and urban life, the 'avant-garde' label often served as a self-legitimizing tool, distancing itself from commercial and ordinary practices. Schumacher's parametricism, in my opinion, straddles this line, trying to bridge the gap between formal experimentation and practical application.
Parametricism's Programmatic Essence
Schumacher's description of parametricism as a 'style' is misleading. It fails to capture the true nature of his project, which is more programmatic than stylistic. He advocates for parametricism in modernist terms, arguing for the correlation between architecture's formal and technological advancements and the manifestations of capitalism. For Schumacher, parametricism was to be the architectural response to post-Fordism and neoliberalism, much like modernism was to the era of Fordism and the welfare state.
What's intriguing is Schumacher's interpretation of the city as a site of accumulation in the post-Fordist era. He draws on the work of Marxist geographer David Harvey, who argued that capital, having dispersed industry globally, had transformed the city into a new arena for accumulation. This perspective influenced Schumacher's vision for parametricism, positioning it as an instrument to articulate the organizational complexities of neoliberalism and the entrepreneurial imperatives shaping urbanization.
The Limits of Parametricism
In practice, however, parametricism struggled to achieve its ambitious goals. The work of Zaha Hadid Architects (ZHA), Schumacher's partner in practice, largely consisted of conventional urban commodification projects: galleries, museums, and luxury residential developments. While some projects, like the Dongdaemun Design Plaza (DDP) in Seoul, showcase parametricism's potential to balance spectacle, utility, and infrastructure, they also highlight its limitations.
To truly answer to the organizational ambitions of a parametric urbanism, projects like the DDP would need to be scaled up significantly, becoming an integral part of the city's fabric. However, this prospect is unrealistic given the changing dynamics of capitalism. Today, capitalism is less interested in incorporating the urban masses and more focused on exacerbating inequality and maintaining unevenness. It is politically motivated, not organizationally driven.
A Style in Search of Relevance
In my opinion, parametricism's struggle to find its place in the contemporary world is a reflection of the changing relationship between architecture and capitalism. The style, once envisioned as a dominant force, has become a relic, a piecemeal probe into a future that cannot be. It is a reminder that architectural styles, no matter how innovative, are subject to the whims of societal and economic forces.
What makes this particularly fascinating is the way parametricism, in its short-lived burst of enthusiasm, tried to navigate the complex relationship between form, function, and capitalism. It raises deeper questions about the role of architecture in a rapidly changing world and the challenges architects face in staying relevant and responsive to societal needs.
