https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/sep/11/zaha-hadid-architects-patrik-schumacher-blueprint-future-parametricism
I am writing this blog in order to start a continuous dialogue with myself where I will try to decipher articles of architectural interest. The first article, see link above, discusses a fresh idea of 'parametricism', an ideology imagined by Patrik Schumacher where all future buildings should be delivered by inputting every imaginable factor into a computer which leads to a building which can change in response to all these parameters. He is certain in its 'rationality' and 'obvious superiority', thriving in the thought of a logical ending- there are no doubts or uncertainty, just scientific reasoning. Through this process parametric designs will have the same curvy and complex 'look'.
However, there are many flaws to this way of thinking, the results of this equation will entirely depend on what parameters are put into the program.
Who will decide what they are? Will that not be an endless list which can never possibly be perfected?
If a human will be deciding what needs to be fed into the computer in the first place, it is still subjective as to what the important factors affecting a building are to be. This still leaves us without a conclusive formula for creating the 'perfect' building, every site will have a multitude of factors and there will always be a multitude of answers, never one definitive answer.
Although, I am not entirely overlooking the fact that computers can provide us with unimaginable ways of delivering and progressing architecture. I believe we have only just begun to unleash the possibilities which computers and programming can give to the world of architecture. There are many ways we can use programs to architecture's great benefit. Even in the beginning of my architectural career I have benefitted from using 'Ecotect' which analyses solar gains when placing your 3D Sketchup model of your building into the program. It helps you to figure out where to place your windows/how many/which size in order to create your required daylight and sunlight levels. I am very intrigued as to where computer programming can take architecture, however, Schumacher seems to want to cut out the middle man (the human mind) and I don't see this as ever working as ultimately a human will always have an input.
The lack of proof also puts Schumacher in a strange position seeing as he is so forthright in the philosophy of parametricism. Zaha Hadid's Riverside Museum in Glasgow looks completely incongruous with its surrounding and much of the internal spaces are redundant. Seeing as Schumacher now runs Hadid's former practice, I would've expected him to provide us with a wealth of evidence to backup his claims, this is not the case.
I do not see how architecture can base itself entirely on scientific data in the future, rather than human intuitive judgements and I don't believe that there can ever be an ultimate algorithm which answers all as who would decide the definitive list of all important factors? I am yet to be persuaded of this ideology, Schumacher.
