The Future is Parametric!
If you are like me your first instinct may be that “parametricies” are another buzz word, a gimmic or a fashion fad, but STOP! Read this simple sentance first, then make up your mind:
Buildings are developed using problem-solving as the driving force rather than by grouping together “architectural objects”.
Ok… sounds convincing, right? So you want to know more of course everyone wants to “problem solve” dont they!?
Confused about parametrics? Try this digested version:
Architecture and urbanism should be tackled as a set of linked design criteria which form a complete “system” in a building, from urbanism down to the smallest details.
Parametric design links all this information in a way to similar to a spreadsheet so that a change in one value creates a corresponding change in all other values.
Since computer-controlled tools now allow components to be made in far fewer numbers in order to be economic, there is much greater freedom in the design of construction systems for buildings and equipment within buildings, and for urban landscaping linking buildings.
Still interested? Read on –
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.
Article sourced from Building Design
Sub edited by Mark Ellery
16 Responses to “The Future is Parametric!”
Leave a Reply
Joao Da Silva on October 7th, 2008
I am not too sure if ‘parametricism’ can be referred to as a style, for a style has embodied attributes through which we may identify objects of that ’style’. What would be the ‘Parametric-style’? It currently has no concrete definition, as it is merely a technique at present, a technique with poly-outcomes if you like. I for one see parametrics as being an inevitable future practice, but one which can only really be realised reasonably if/when we are able to actually build the things one can create with paramertics digitally. I love parametrics, but I still love my pencil and paper even more. PS – One other tool in development is AGX (AutoCAD GenX), parametric system within AutoCAD, watch this space.
Matt Wingrove on October 7th, 2008
I can’t help but think that by referring to parametrics as a style rather than a tool, this shows that it is just being used to intellectually justify building the blobs that Zaha and Patrik find pretty. How do ‘fluid fields’ or ’swarms’ come into problem solving for a building? Surely they are manipulated inputs that give the resulting shape the architects’ desire? Calling ‘parametricism’ the great new style after modernism is therefore just an attempt to play up their own importance in architectural theory. Ive also noticed that this argument presents nothing that justifies why parametricism will provide a better building for the people that use it- but instead just uses lots of big words in the hope of impressing intellectual peers, and deliberately confusing those that don’t understand it. This consequently gives supporters of parametrics a good put down against arguments like mine. Good work BD on the digested digest!
mangrenade on October 7th, 2008
It’s interesting that the declaration of a new style and a departure from modernism is delivered in the medium of modernist discourse: the manifesto. Shouldn’t parametricism be explained in a series of surface logarithms? If the architecture community vindicates the existence of a parametric style, then the community will be moving away from the actual dialogue and content of architecture, which is and has always been space in some respect. Space is not merely a tenet of modernism. “Parametricism” is an attempt to venerate Form as the means, the generator, and the product of design in our “heterogeneous” context. But if Form becomes an expression of “fields”, and everything becomes everything, then is parametricism really an appropriate response to the premise of heterogeneity? Integrating all elements of design into a fluid aesthetic package is actually the pursuit of flattening and homogenizing design (that is, limiting variety). Herman Hertzberger talked a lot about this issue in a fairly articulate manner. He believes that the disproportionate obsession with continuous surfaces is a compensation for a lack of programmatic or spatial innovation. This new style appears to be nothing more than an engine to propel the fascination of form and aesthetics that predominates the broader discussion of architecture… a discussion that undermines the value of design in society and posits design as a superficial act that is of no importance to everyday life.
Mark Ellery on October 7th, 2008
I am all for parametric design and I think it is an amazing revolution and we should expect to see more of it in the next 5 years, especially now that the “recession” has really hit home. After all “they” say that on tighter budgets designers are forced to work harder!
Parametricism impresses me, BUT lets not forget (like CAD) it is a TOOL for a designer to use, I think there is a danger that some “lesser architects” could rely on it too heavily – therefore allowing the computer to run the design.
As I understand it (and its new to me, so correct me if I am wrong) parametricism takes proportions and numerical “teachings” from nature and instals these formulae into the design of a building – as I see it this can only be good, we all know about the golden spiral, and thats great isnt it?! It makes sense too! After all, nature always beats humans, rather than try to beat nature, why not WORK WITH IT?
If someone can explain the devlopment that a parametric design goes through using diagrams and images then I think the whole world will be convinced that parametricism is the way forward!
For a view of the future take a look at http://www.evolo-arch.com/
(Warning – you may see some images that look like screen shots from “The Matrix”!)
Also see previous Boidus news article http://boidus.co.uk/?p=97
Here is a video, just in case you are not convinced!
killion on October 7th, 2008
Last time we posted this project ‘Asemic Scapes concepts by gradute Sarah Schneider’…
http://boidus.co.uk/?p=124
which uses parametric design to some astonishing outcomes. I am convinced that parametric design is solving a lot of complicated design form finding issues… however I still remain unconvinced if it is actually used sincerely to solve ‘real’ problems or just as tool to ‘make’ complexities where there shouldn’t be!
Mark Ellery on October 7th, 2008
Also see this weeks event hosted by London South Bank University, a talk all about parametric architecture – http://boidus.co.uk/?p=277
Mark Ellery on October 7th, 2008
good point, is parametric design complicating an otherwise “simple” problem?
does parametric design produce buildings that suit peoples needs BETTER than before?
either way, i think there is a place for parametric design, structurally it is far superior than a traditional design and it is definately relevant to large scale residential or commercial buildings… whether it can influence a garden shed or terraced house I’m not sure… I think it may take a while… but this is not really the question is it? At the moment parametric design is still wrestling with theoretical problems… it is still in its infant stage is it not? The architecture schools have the answers… so lets see what the students bring to the world of architecture!
hennry on October 10th, 2008
To create a parametric TopSolid model we developed the idea of three elipses which depend on one another in a parametric way. The center of the three elipses is situated on the same axes. The distance between each ellipse is changeable.
——————————–
hennry
opinion leader
Mark Ellery on November 1st, 2008
Just in:
The latest parametric development – its dead!
Has parametricism come and gone before we knew it? the word on the street is that the AA have already turned their back on it… so now that its mainstream will the public catch on, or will it stall?
I have been forming some opinions of “parametric design” and my most recent thoughts are as follows:
parametric design will play a large part in the future of architecture. in the RIGHT hands (and i mean highly talented, intellectual, down to earth architects who dont forget about PEOPPLE) it can be amazing…
when abused it can be awful, i think it is a dangerous tool, in th wrong hands people could lose control of the design, the pc would lead it, and it could have awful effects. after all, if someone presents a “parametric” design – who can argue against them, it would take forever to re do all of their calculations!
computer rending and CGIS are not for me,, not yet anyway, im still very concerned with th mistakes of the past, and not makig th same mistakes in th future. after all, WHY do we design something in a particular way – is it any better than before?!
a common criticism of any form of computer aided drafting could argue that the binary language cannot be adapted to a “humanistic” design. i used to be a computer geek, but have kind of forgotten that side of my personality. i recently remembered why i left that part of me behind – its a cold, machine driven, disconected way of working – it is for technicians and people who are trying to live in th matrix :-s
(a nice thought i admit, but lets not forget, chances are its not real! LOL)
Rob on November 1st, 2008
I second lord ellerys comments! LOL I hate 3d crews attitude. They are closed off to an architecture that is more than eye candy. How about including actual live living people as one of your parameters! you cant give numerical values to them can you! and how do you rate quality, or feeling, or emotion – can you give those numbers too?! all sounds a bit like an injury lawyer (or QS!) deciding on th price of a lost limb or cash payout for death…. hmm, i wonder how much thats worth?
Chris on November 1st, 2008
i am tired, frustrated and annoyed at a few things currently portrayed in the architectural discourse. im not so much against the idea of parametric design (and i dont want to give the term anymore exposure than it already has), but i have a big problem with glorifying the building form when it neglects the very essence of architecture….
Mark Ellery on November 4th, 2008
the parametric debate has taken a step forwards (or is that backwards), to follow it go to http://boidus.co.uk/?p=332#comment-458
Mark Ellery on February 24th, 2009
An interesting essay (PDF) about “growing” buildings
http://www.peterkerkhoff.nl/data/files/general/masters_essay_peter_kerkhoff.pdf
Mark Ellery on April 3rd, 2009
keep architecture crafting
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=427&storycode=3137265&c=1