PARAPLAY – THE PARAMETRIC GAME

Patrik Schumacher’s lament on the slow uptake of his self-proclaimed, computer styling for this century, parametricism, has not only stirred various responses in the media, but has prompted one to give more thought to this phenomena: see – https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2026/05/parametric-parameters.html: the pondering continues. How might one best explain the issues and concerns that have been raised, and give them some tangible reference to aid understanding rather than leaving matters of concern as a vague, personal opinion, something to be dismissed as a quirky, temperamental preference – “Oh, that’s just what you think”?

The advertisement for the NeoRuler-Scale Ruler – see: https://hozodesign.com/en-au/products/neoruler-premium-combo, prompted one to pause and think about how the tool can become the centre of interest, attention, and admiration, rather than the measurement itself, or the purpose of the measurement.* There is a mesmerising quality to new technology in gadgets that one can also sense in parametricism where the system/technology is the core consideration, with everything revolving around the operation of the algorithm and its interesting developments rather than being engaged with the everyday to be accommodated in an outcome, involving sympathy with human need and the power to interpret them in a language vernacular and time (Louis Sullivan). As with the intrigue of the ruler, and the demands technology makes on the operator, parametricism itself becomes the distracting framework controlling thoughts and actions and outcomes.

It is not dissimilar to Lego – good play. Parametricism can be seen as ‘paramertric play’ which is claimed by Schumacher to be ‘good.’ It differs greatly to that idea of ‘good work’ that another Schumacher wrote about - see: E.F. Schumacher, Good Work, Jonathan Cape, London, 1979. With Lego, everything comes under the control of the system; everything grows from its inherent structure/connectivity; manipulations are all managed by the digital - piece by piece - concept that shapes the possibilities and determines the limitations, with outcomes that seek to achieve ‘an appearance.’ The system is the set of rules with which one begins, the given format. Even though the Lego concept might be cleverly flexible and adaptable, the inherent patterning of parts all arising from the basic hollow cube with the raised dot, its demands, defines all possibilities, leaving the challenge being the visuals: the clever adaptation of the pieces to fabricate the final intention where appearance is critical, be this the Eiffel Tower, Sagrada Familia, Shrek, or Van Gogh’s Starry Night painting - ‘in Lego.’ The effort goes in to achieving the desired visual effects, juggling pieces and parts to shape the idea using the available Lego selection and its standard couplings. The proposition is: How can one can achieve a ‘look’ by using a particular set of selected pieces appropriately juxtaposed? The attention to structure is distanced from any raw necessity, with the system itself managing all basic matters by snapping together, establishing the starting point for ‘the build.’ Structural concerns have no relationship to the origin of forms accommodating stresses; rather the piecing involves the management of the outcomes allowed by the building blocks in order to achieve a certain similitude. Lego buildings/constructions generally have no interiors other than the required block arrangements and various ad hoc infill supports needed to shape the final vision, even if some of these are ‘interiors’; eg of the triumphal arch, the dinosaur, the car motor - see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2026/05/arch-follies.html. The exception proves the rule: Gaudi’s Sagrada Familia, a Lego kit of 12,060 pieces, does have an interior space that remains Lego: see – https://www.dezeen.com/2026/06/04/lego-sagrada-familia-largest-set-antoni-gaudi/. This model highlights the sense of appearance as an overall gesture, creating something like a whimsical ghost of an image which becomes, when studied in detail, merely a collection of ordinary Lego parts; a clever cluttering of predetermined bits and pieces assembled to ‘look like’ . . . . The strange perception of the parts revealed on inspection remains the same in all models; it is the schematic appearance that differs: one sees blocks ‘used as.’

Olympic Aquatics Centre, London.

Likewise, parametricism creates exteriors in its seeking out bespoke morphing possibilities: see Olympic Aquatics Centre - https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2012/07/pairs-5-1956-2012-olympic-pools.html and https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2026/05/parametric-parameters.html - where whatever structure might be necessary to make the form has been detailed irrespective of logic or economy. Even the interiors are exteriors that have been located inside another parametric form – just more clever appearances boldly shaped by algorithms. Any notion of a making and shaping for human everyday involvement is minimised, other than, so it seems, catering for bespoke surprise and amazement: WOW! The task appears to be the adaptation of the forms to approximate a purpose, irrespective of the structure required to achieve this vision, and the intimate demands of the various functions to be accommodated. Here form follows formula rather than function, hinting at the perception of that 'ye olde' cliché, form follows function, as an archaic irrelevance – next; move on to parametricism. Attention appears to be given to managing the tool, exploring algorithmic possibilities, with potential participants, the users and passersby, being considered, if at all, as performers in a stage set, or merely potential, transient admirers of the drama of the centrepiece. Ordinary care for experience, the feeling, touching, sensing sensitivities involved in everyday activities, look to be an irrelevance in the shaping and making, with parametricism seeming to be fundamentally anonymous, appearing to shun personal connectivity with its indulgent self-interest, concerning itself only with its own construct and rules in the same manner as Lego does, for clever bespoke display. One only has to think of the sad case of the aclaimed Vitra fire station where forms were so removed from function that the place was unworkable as a fire station, finally accommodating the more malleable demands of a design museum that can literally fit into any unusual space, anywhere, the more bizarre, the better.

Vitra Fire Station.

This does not make either Lego or parametricism inherently problematical; both are interesting in their own way; intriguing; mesmerising. Lego is as clever a system as parametricism; it is just that the parametric architect/Lego builder becomes the tool/operator in the same way as the person with the digital scale, fully engaged with the ‘technology’ rather than giving attention to the subtleties of life and living, Sullivan’s sympathies, to shape form, with thoughts and actions being manipulated, controlled by the limiting framework of the system, remaining, so it appears, totally unconcerned with the everyday issues to be accommodated in the case of the architect, and the functioning integrity of the thing in the case of the Lego designer. Things just have to look good. The Lego master who works with the Lego pieces and parts has to give all the attention to the working with and within the system in the search for the most appropriate way to achieve the vision; the preferred, desired appearance. The effort goes into grappling with the system - and, with parametricism, the algorithm - be this an involvement with the broad concept possibilities, documentation, or construction. The individual commits more to the digital way of operating as demanded by the inner patterning of the technology rather than to the intention to shape anything to accommodate a lived interaction, apart from WOW!

Frank Lloyd Wright used a system, but always related it to the intimacies of purpose:

Wright’s greatest contribution to Architecture, I think, is his unit system of design. All his plans are composed of units grouped in a symmetrical and systematic way. The unit usually employed is the casement window unit. . . . Wright develops his unit first, then fits his design to the requirements as much as possible, or rather, fits his requirements to the design. I do not mean by this that he ignores the requirements, but rather that he approaches his work in a broad minded architectural way.

H. Allen Brooks (ed.) Writings on Wright Selected Comment on Frank Lloyd Wright, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1981, p.86

With parametricism, it seems that the experience that takes the attention of the architect is the entertained appearance; there seems to be nothing/little of concern for the individual user other than the drama of the spectacle. Consider the experience of the pedestrian in such a basic thing as approaching an unfamiliar building and not knowing where one might enter, even if the project has been much acclaimed for its astonishing feat of creativity: see - https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2012/01/pedestrian-approach.html. The individual is left in a state of mild panic, uncertain, guessing possibilities as the steps toward the building become more hesitant as the dilemma materialises – see also: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2025/08/v-dundee-craggy-chic.html. This one aspect of address highlights just one emotional aspect in the interaction between place and the neglected users and passersby.

12,060 pieces!

It appears that the digital challenge is merely to display just how clever one can be, rather than accommodating anyone and their needs and satisfactions: just imagine, 12,060 pieces! – WOW!: see - https://www.wallpaper.com/architecture/lego-architecture-reaches-its-apotheosis-in-this-massive-model-of-the-sagrada-familia and https://jaysbrickblog.com/news/12060-piece-lego-21065-sagrada-familia-biggest-lego-set-of-all-time/. So we have Lego masters and parametric geniuses; but the status of ‘master/genius’ need not necessarily ignore these more intimate matters. There are stories about Frank Lloyd Wright that tell of his arrogance and carelessness for his clients in this regard, with designs controlled by his ambitions and genius, with their demands for bespoke expression and stark singularity, but researchers have shown this not to be so, noting that Wright paid attention to the little things in life. His organic architecture did care for origins and accommodated ordinary experience while maintaining a structural integrity and a careful response to both process and materials. Difference does not have to be demanding. Wright promoted an organic architecture, inspired by Sulllivan’s philosophy, seeking out that inner coherence in form shaped by necessity rather than the WOW! of the new. Consider, for example, the interaction with the newest laser engraver, ever better and better, turning the operator into its slave, commanding and demanding defined moves to get the promised, preferred outcomes.

Laser engraver.

Clinton Walker house plan.

Interview with FLW:

When Sullivan and I came to architecture, it had been slumbering for five hundred years. We woke it up. We gave it a fresh start. We made it organic. We said architecture was space to be lived in, not a facade, not a box, not a monument.

H. Allen Brooks (ed.) Writings on Wright Selected Comment on Frank Lloyd Wright, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1981, p.20.

Clinton Walker house, Carmel-by-the-Sea.

“Wright arrogantly dictates the design to his clients.” The evidence is to the contrary. Wright invariably conducted all discussions with his clients personally and took considerable pains to ascertain the client’s requirements and living habits. However, when Wright felt a client was ill informed in requesting a particular feature, he could be extraordinarily persuasive. He was also persuasive when he personally favored a particular design scheme for a given site.

H. Allen Brooks (ed.) Writings on Wright Selected Comment on Frank Lloyd Wright, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1981, p.38.

Elvish languages of Middle-earth.

There is a position that sees architecture as a language. What this emphasises is the notion that, inherent in the base idea of a language is the idea of and need for communication with others. In architecture, this ‘language’ becomes the concept of a shared set of signs and symbols that can carry information. A private language is useless for all except the individual who created it. The arrogant, “I know what it means,” is a rude indulgence, a careless put-down. Here one thinks of Tolkien and his mysterious words that alienate. Architects might be getting clever outcomes with AI, but what is the message? The situation seems to be similar to the circumstance where, in an emergency on a vessel, the seamen who come from various countries across the globe, all panic in their own native language, adding to the chaos. Communication relies of shared concerns, agreements. Schumacher speaks of parametricism solving our present-day development muddle, but seen as a ‘language,’ with everyone indulging bespoke ambitions with this style, we will only surely get more chaos. Even though the descriptive categorisation might gather everything together into the one word, each project is declaring its own message in its own unintelligible, stylish signs, Tolkien-like. Urban cohesion relies on an innate, common understanding, agreed ambitions, and a cooperative respect, not a shared styling where a general randomness only creates a babble of froth and bubble.

Where ‘the system’ controls the possibilities, or drives/guides them, we are left with blind intentions looking after themselves, their interests, careless of any message other than MY display – the visuals: a Lego portrait or a WOW! building; inner structures are irrelevant - (c.f. Olympic Aquatics Centre 3,0000 tonnes of steel). One can consider the loading of a dishwasher in this matter of controlling frameworks. It is immediately obvious that the racks limit locations and arrangements of various objects, in spite of any ambition to do things differently for other reasons. Similarly with the ‘Contact us’ boxes on web sites, where one is encouraged to respond to the welcoming opportunity that seems to want to provide the space for one’s message to be heard, only to discover that there is a limit of 50 words, e.g. when one needs 300 to make the point clearly. The system is obviously controlling expression and outcomes. One is left frustrated, insulted, and annoyed – unable to do anything about it. Such amorphous experiences are those neglected, ignored, and tolerated by the bold carelessness of parametricism.

Then there is the example of the ‘Contact us’ information on the site that gives one a circular set of references that lead one back to where one started, with each step promising possibilities that seem to encourage the next move’s success, only for one to be offered further required steps that do likewise until one ends up at the original ‘Contact us’ beginning, without any Eliot poetic experience. The intense interruption to ordinary satisfaction is silent and unseen, but seriously felt. These are the lived emotions neglected with the digital world. Pamuk highlights these subtle, complex matters in his Museum of Innocence: see – https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2026/04/the-architecture-of-memory.html. We ignore such matters at our peril with the loss of contentment.

One is left feeling like Kafka’s K. in The Castle, being allowed whatever but never; spun around with doublespeak, with matters managed, mangled by spin: e.g., Council’s assuring the complainant that the four metre deep carport that left the majority of cars projecting out awkwardly and dangerously into the pedestrian footpath, was indeed an approved structure, a statement that comes with, ‘and we will no longer communicate on this matter.’ . . . Go away: classic K. More recently we get told by government that the idea to develop Brisbane’s Olympic stadium for 60,000 people in a central parkland space important to first nations people will ‘improve’ the place - see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2026/01/olympic-park-brisbanes-green-development.html. In spite of the protests from the indigenous people, one can expect that the Olympics will open with a statement on country, noting how everyone recognises and respects elders, country, etc. - see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2024/06/country-outside-inside-place.html. The rude spin comes from deaf ears that, as with parametric projects, seem to be concerned only with themselves and preferred their chosen outcomes. Can one look forward to Central Park in New York being ‘improved’ by development; or Regent's Park in London becoming a development site for a sports complex?

Central Park, New York.

Regent's Park, London.

Victoria Park, Brisbane.

Frameworks control possibilities, in the same way the tools do. Consider the issues that arise with such a simple problem as the wrong spanner or screwdriver.

As with Lego, with what one might call an ‘open system,’ given its astonishing flexibility and adaptability, the dot connection, the inherent logic/structure, still controls everything, with the prime concept being to reproduce an image. There is nothing here that touches on the sense of organic wholeness where native necessities are accommodated in the outcome. Pull a flower apart carefully and discover the inner integrity, the intense necessity, and the interrelated continuity in its delicate wonder. It is this coherence, this ‘inner necessity’ (Wassily Kandinsky, Concerning the Spiritual in Art, Dover, New York, 1977; original German, Munich, 1911), that is missing when the system takes control of our attention and frames the starting point. Compare this set of relationships with those revealed in the similar ‘pull apart’ act with a plastic replica flower, or a Lego flower, made for its clever, striking appearance alone.

The function of the flower.

Parametricism is much the same;  pull apart a parametric project and discover the dislocated parts. With interiors and exteriors managed by algorithms, the building lacks that essential sympathy for the user who is left as a performer, an admirer, a ‘homeless’ stranger, in complete amazement at the genius of it all, the smart, bespoke outcome: WOW! The subtle matters of experience in life and its ‘everyday’ involvements appear to be an irrelevance.

One can compare the void created by the automated telephone answering system with that emptiness experienced with parametricism. One is put through through a series of questions and demanded button pressings, only to eventually have the call terminated with a direction to go elsewhere, perhaps to an internet site, leaving a vast nothingness of unattended subtleties askew. These dismissed issues are not dissimilar to those ignored by parametricism. They scream out silently for attention only to be completely ignored by the authority of the algorithm that has its own limits and intentions that do not appear to care for personal intimacies or concerns. The outcome is sheer frustration unless one is totally transfixed and engaged by the distracting wonders of technology.

The proposition is that architecture is more than appearance; that it needs to accommodate life and its context in all of their variety and complexity, with care and sensitivity. Grand displays struggle to achieve this, parametric or not.

Referencing Sullivan today might seem ‘old hat,’ but even Wright knew his significance. He called Sullivan ‘lieber Meister’:

He spoke of Sullivan, his “beloved master” and the latter’s position in the development of contemporary architecture, and of his own work for and with him.

H. Allen Brooks (ed.) Writings on Wright Selected Comment on Frank Lloyd Wright, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1981, p.18.

Lego Visitor Centre.

While Lego and parametricism are truly interesting in their own way, we do need to find out how to accommodate ordinary life in our buildings so that they can support basic well-being. This may mean a fresh beginning. Being clever with AI is like screaming out gobbledegook for one’s own entertainment, drawing attention to oneself and one's work as a child might. Architecture needs to be better than this. It needs roots in soul and shared understandings, both eloquent and quiet.

Loren Pope

For six years we lived in a truly modern house, designed and built for us by Frank Lloyd Wright, [and] we want to tell what it has meant to us.

[What we have found is] it is the only kind of habitation fit for man because it has a presence and a soul. Why? First, because it is a work of principle. And the other reasons grow out of the first. Because it is a work of principle, it is honest, it is both eloquent and quiet. Buildings are close to our lives and influence them, consciously or subconsciously. Mr. Wright’s buildings are a tangible expression of his philosophy.

H. Allen Brooks (ed.) Writings on Wright Selected Comment on Frank Lloyd Wright, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1981, p.52.

There is a dilemma here, highlighted by Galileo:

Even his, [M.C Escher], wildest speculations reveal the workings of the world itself, grounded as they are in what Galileo called “the language of mathematics” in which “the book of nature is written”.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2026/jun/04/mc-escher-review-hallucinatory-insights-from-the-master-of-the-mind-bending-staircase

Parametricism is fundamentally mathematics. One could argue that it is rooted in the basics of our world – “the book of nature.” So why is there a problem?

In his Letters from the Studio of Frank Lloyd Wright, Charles E. White writes:

W. tells me to stop reading books for a while, and do nothing but study nature and sketch. He says to continually and eternally sketch the forms of trees – “a man who can sketch from memory the different trees, with their characteristics faithfully portrayed, will be a good architect.”

H. Allen Brooks (ed.) Writings on Wright Selected Comment on Frank Lloyd Wright, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1981, p.83.

Drawings from D'arcy Thompsom, On Growth and Form.

Wright is reinforcing Sullivan’s cry: study nature and learn from it. To date, it seems that parametricism has been engaged only with itself, showing little interest in any relationship with either nature or human nature and the subtleties involved, such is its engrossing intrigue that distracts from the everyday and dominates attention, thought and action with ‘interesting’ possibilities. One can see the most astonishing forms and revelations in nature, but they all have roots; meaning for being; integrity. They are not merely decorative or additional ad hoc fabrications or different, ‘interesting’ whims.

Parametricism appears to remain surprised by itself and satisfied with its shrewd cleverness. It currently looks as though it is merely engaged in playing with possibilities just because one can, in this new computer age that generates ever-new excitements. It will not be until parametricism embraces life in all of its aspects that it will be said to hold meaning and integrity beyond the playful game that it seems to be today. Sullivan’s theory is much more than the cliché cry of the ‘F’ words, form follows function, which have been related only to practical facts. One needs to look closely at Sullivan’s writings to understand how function needs to be involved in every way and at all levels of complexity, be these practical or mystical/emotional,# if meaning is to be touched. We need to do more, differently, and ponder Wright’s works to see possibilities even though it is no longer fashionable or considered ‘cool.’ We have to overcome our blind belief in progress, and grasp at meaning whenever and wherever it appears. We have used Sullivan and Wright here as examples/references; there are others. Currently, parametricism is grabbing attention just because it is new, different, and demanding – and is allowed to. We have to remember, that in spite of AI and all of its hype, we remain in control and only relinquish this position when we choose to. It appears to be our enchantment with ‘look-no-hands’ illusions, (and self-drive vehicles, mowers, vacuum cleaners, etc.), that currently drives us into a future that we know nothing of, other than believing it will be better, sooner, cheaper, and faster, all with less effort. Will it be so? There is nothing to ensure us that this must be the way things will turn out, or that we will thrive in this 'futuristic' environment.

Gaining the whole world, but losing one’s own soul comes to mind [Matthew 16:26].

What must one do? Reading E.F. Schumacher’s 1979 text, Good Work, (Jonathan Cape, London), might not be a bad beginning.

Louis Sullivan

"Whether it be the sweeping eagle in his flight, or the open apple-blossom, the toiling work-horse, the blithe swan, the branching oak, the winding stream at its base, the drifting clouds, over all the coursing sun, form ever follows function, and this is the law."

"A proper building grows naturally, logically, and poetically out of all its conditions."

"True art, springing fresh from Nature, must have in it, to live, much of the glance of an eye, much of the sound of a voice, much of the life of a life."

*

See also: https://hozodesign.com/en-au/products/neoruler?variant=44456222294254&country=AU&currency=AUD&utm_medium=product_sync&utm_source=google&utm_content=sag_organic&utm_campaign=sag_organic&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=23638505694&gbraid=0AAAAABTg1-OLe1r2NvizbBkos36WLCdTo&gclid=CjwKCAjwrNrQBhBjEiwAoR4VOzHA-275csHD0r1TNJhRHMAJp3L4bAaqvsZUVLS72VHf9sFJEKIcsxoCdZ8QAvD_BwE

#

See Paul Jacques Grillo’s What is Design? P. Theobald, 1960 that contains a personal message following titled To a young designer, and signed Paul J. Grillo: see -

https://archive.org/details/whatisdesign0000paul/page/n7/mode/2up

This unusual text printed on unnumbered pages that do not appear in the index, with the text in italics, located in the front of the book after the Preface, defines a position that touches on the mystical/emotional matters in this subject. Just why the world considers the neglect of a past matter of relevance to be ‘progress,’ remains an enigma – a blind, egocentric absurdity rooted in the belief in bold strides with advancements and developments that are seen to be getting only ever better and better, making a mockery of even the recent past.

Grillo’s writes:

. . . . your only sure guide will always be intuition.

You will realise that the humblest work may possess eternal greatness if it possesses sincerity.

Some of the text is underlined text:

Don’t be afraid.

. . . live dangerously

Avoid brainwashing of any kind.

Burn your idols once in a while. Recipes are for poor cooks. Great cooks make recipes.

Don’t work for success.

Flout the rules as often as you can in a masterly way.

. . . acquire a masterly knowledge of your craft.

Grillo sums up his two-page message:

Only through the constant practice of your grammar, your scales and arpeggios, vocalises and sketches, will you become articulate in your art.

All the rest is nonsense.

What would Leonardo think of this?

Durham Cathedral in Lego.

The Lego detail borders on the cartoonish.