Apparently Patrik
Schumacher of ZHA is “not happy” with the rate of “parametricism
uptake,” as declared in the headline: see -
https://share.google/53psIpscpGpC2Ke02.
The full text of the article is reproduced below.
Patrik Schumacher.
But what is
parametricism? It sounds like a digital disability strategy; or is it
a skydiving programme? It does not seem to be an architectural term,
but it is. Here, another site is able to assist with a simple guide
to this idea; or might one label it an approach, or methodology?# It
seems that Schumacher wants to call it a style; to see it as a
significant period in the history of architecture, the successor to
Modernism. Is he expecting a new chapter in Bannister Fletcher with
this title?
.jpg)
Schumacher dismisses
the other architectural categories that have defined various
approaches to design after Modernism – postmodernism,
deconstructivism, brutalism, high-tech, neo-classicism, minimilism –
claiming that they have all disappeared or
have been
enveloped within
the broader notion of Modernism,
perhaps its perversion
- and boldly declares that his approach, that was apparently named
parametric in 2008 for the Venice Architecture Biennale by
Schumacher himself, is the next, true, universal architectural style:
parametricism will still become a universal architectural
style - the great new style after modernism: era-defining.
He might like it to be so, and is now apparently showing some
frustration with the general lack of excitement for, or interest in
this approach. Does one expect Trumpian expletives because of this
neglect; this disinterest: “Do it MY way you f . . . b . . . s!”?
Does this frustration say something about parametricism or
Schumacher; maybe both?
.jpg)
Schumacher
acknowledges that – to his own disappointment – parametricism has
not yet been widely adopted by the industry, and at the moment is far
from a universal style.
Schumacher believes
that parametric design makes it ideologically aligned with our
computer-dominated current age,
and uses this
over-simplistic logic – that parametricism uses computers like the
rest of us - to argue that it is the meaningful style for our AI era.
He explains:
What really
drives the proliferation is a good fit with the sociology, economic,
technology and dynamics of an era
– that is, simplistically:
we all use computers. Just why and what this good fit
is, or how it might be meaningful for our time, is never delved into.
The notion of a good fit brings to mind that relationship
between form and function, structure and system, which is the core of
Modernism. Schumacher, sounding a little cranky now, blames
universities for the slow uptake: They withdrew and went into this
woke kind of territory – anti-capitalism, anti-design, anti-star
architecture. One has to wonder why this has apparently been so.
Perhaps this was a reaction to parametricism?
.jpg)
Even Schumacher
seems aware of the critique of parametricism – that it is pure,
fanciful styling based on suave appearance alone, to be achieved at
all costs, literally - and acknowledges the problem without apology
or embarrassment: early buildings in the style had to use lots of
material and complex engineering to achieve a desired look.
Unbelievably, he explains clearly how the whole approach was a
stylish, bespoke charade; fudged forms:
The first wave of
parametricism was just form. On the inside you had hatched jobs of
steel frames with cladding on the outside, and between was a huge
kind of unaccounted-for pochette [pocket] – it was just surfaces
– see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2012/07/pairs-5-1956-2012-olympic-pools.html, where the London Olympic Aquatics Centre roof has almost the same quaintly of steel in it as a battleship, all when the Olympics were
promoted as the ‘green’ Olympics; and still there are no red
faces at ZHA, just the claim for accolades and a new word that will
attend to the critique.
HMS Westminster - 3,500 tonnes.
Aquatics Centre roof framing - 3,000 tonnes.
Temporary seating was designed to be removed after the games.
Things are said to
be different now. Schumacher explains the change in approach with
another ‘ism’:
. . . he points
to what he sees as an evolution of the style that he terms
"tectonism" – which aims to directly link digital
form-finding with physical fabrication and structural engineering.
"Tectonism
has more substance and credibility – it is not so easily dismissed
as the earlier parametric buildings, which were partly illogical,
partly over-expensive, let's say compositionally, artistic and
willful. [sic.]
The astonishing
thing is that, while Schumacher is clearly agreeing with the critics,
and knows the failings of parametricism, he still believes in this
self-proclaimed ‘ism’ – the successor to Modernism - noting
that it is popular with young architects, as if this might be a good
gauge for quality and desirability:
[Even] with all
the kind of discouragement from the schools of architecture that just
want to talk about sustainability and social justice, all the
students and young architects, what they would love to design and
build is parametricism.
Is this because of
its stylish astonishment; its grandiose, grand design?##
And there are two
reasons why. One is because it is the most sophisticated style in the
sense of absorbing all the engineering optimisation intelligence.
What on earth does
this mean? Didn’t Schumacher just tell us that parametricism was
just faking forms, irrespective of the engineering? Still, he
continues, regardless of this difference, spelling out the obvious,
that if everyone used parametricism, there would be, at least, some
coherence, if only in the name:
But also, it is
good to be on the same paradigm if you want to build a city together,
which functions together, something where there's a coherence with an
identity and beauty.
This is the
Schumacher solution to today’s chaotic development:
It's not good
that the different approaches fight each other, because then you
don't generate something larger. All you get is the garbage spill,
where everything is trying to be prominent and in the end, nothing is
prominent – there's no hierarchy, no legibility and no logic.
.jpg)
The argument
Schumacher presents is a little muddled, solving big problems with
what seems so blatantly obvious, when even a collection of his own buildings hardly cohere: more is needed. He clearly wants everyone to adopt his style
to overcome the garbage spill
development we see everywhere today, while remaining critical of all
other approaches that talk
about sustainability and social justice
and anti-capitalism, anti-design, anti-star architecture
as if one should never
do this; suggesting that
these are undesirable developments, or
that one should not criticise his idea.
This comes from a man who reportedly said: The whole system
of so called “affordable
housing” constitutes a massive interference with
market processes that costs our society dearly. + Does he
realise that it is paramentricism that might have stimulated this
interest in these other matters?
The London Olympic Aquatics Centre, and
other projects too, highlight the
issues – see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2012/07/pairs-5-1956-2012-olympic-pools.html. Little
wonder that there might be an interest in critiquing this approach.
.jpg)
Schumacher
is obviously aware of these inherent problems that he acknowledges,
so we now have this new, corrective ‘ism’ to solve/address the
problems: “tectonicism.” It seems to be parametricism on a finer
scale. Instead of doing whatever to create the bespoke form, more
thought is apparently being given to how the structure might itself
be designed and constructed as a skeleton that relates to its skin,
its expression. Just how this might happen is not clear, but one
assumes that algorithms are again involved – to maintain the good
fit with the sociology, economic, technology and dynamics of [our]
era.
.jpg)
In
spite of these efforts to save face, it seems that the primary
problem with this strategy is that there is no fundamental
inspiration for this approach other than computers; that this design
work can now all be done with clever algorithms. The strategy might
have length, breadth, and height, but it lacks the depth that St.
Paul referred to. Morphing is not meaning, just mangling. There is no
essential relationship with purpose or life or other ideas. The work involves itself
in its own inner, theoretical relationships, being something like a
hyperbolic paraboloid structure – c.f. Tange – that is there in
this form because of its mathematical intrigue alone.^^
Hyperbolic paraboloid structure.
St. Mary's Cathedral, Tokyo - Kenzo Tange.
.jpg)
Modernism
had its roots in the experience of nature; its necessity and
integrity. Wright named it ‘organic.’ Sullivan saw the
relationship between form and function, and experience, noting that,
for example, the form of the rose, (or apple-blossom or leaf), is the
function of the rose, (or apple-blossom or leaf), and vice versa.++
Surely a rose is parametic? Are not fractals involved? Is Schumacher
referring to the fractal concept when seeking to make more rational
sense out of skin-deep parametricism with tectonism; trying to get
more inner coherence? The point is that function is not just
practical purpose. The function Sullivan spoke about embodied a
mystical understanding and approach. The moon was gold and round
before the coin . . . Modernism’s roots lie in the whole of our
world and its interwoven necessities; in our very being. One needs to
read Sullivan, not for any nostalgic, ye olde worlde history revival
lesson, but to understand exactly what he was saying; to seek out
real meaning. The cliché cry deforms and distracts his ideas.
.jpg)
Now one wonders:
tectonicism? Is Schumacher referring to Lubetkin’s firm or the
science of the earth’s crust? Is he living in a world of his own
construct, happy to merely forget all references and create his own
meaning for his concepts? Is this what parametricism is: his
preference for the world that MUST TAKE THE WORLD OVER: that MUST
BECOME UNIVERSAL! It is the answer! The desire for global dominance
seems to bring to mind some self-promoted world leaders with similar
aims and attitudes. Will Schumacher ever accept that parametricism
might die out, disappear to become as ephemeral as the other ‘isms’
he talks about; to end up as a defunct and discredited style? The Vitra fire station lesson never seems to be learned, just ignored in favour of delight, neglecting commodity and perhaps firmness too.
.jpg)
While one can
sympathise with Schumacher about the chaotic state of our towns,
cities, and countryside today, the shambles that they are, it seems
that forcing some decorative, analogical, form-making onto everyone
so that everything looks the same, curvaciously interesting, and is
relevant to our world today because it has all been generated on the
computer, seems naive and somewhat arrogant. If we are to have a
future, we need to find roots in depth that ground the inspiration is
a basic, essential, shared need and ambition, as an enrichment,
rather than promote some adherence to a preferred appearance that seems to
attract only the indulgence of the flighty eye seeking only thrills and
excitement. Little wonder that parametricism is so attractive for
airports, stadiums, and promotional buildings that indulge in the amazements of the spectacle: an impressive public display, a visually striking performance, or a
strange and unexpected sight that attracts a lot of attention.
.jpg)
Schumacher needs to
understand that it is not his happiness that holds sense and meaning
for the future; it has to do with individuals and community, where
everyday experience is embodied and enriched rather than entertained
with deliberate, extreme distractions – a constant WOW! – no matter how these are contrived. We need an architecture that can hold true meaning,
inform, and accommodate quietly and gently, that does acknowledge and
respect neighbours, fulfilling them rather than competing in the struggle
for attention that even Schumacher is aware of as he, without
apparent irony, participates with grandly grand gestures that seek to
probe and prompt the extremes of perception with excitement and interest.
.jpg)
More and more of
this same strategy might give some overall coherence, perhaps, just as a
matter of firm fact of categorisation, but this is mere hollow styling. The integrity and
depth needs to be understood, comprehended and sensed as being
needed; the similarity of the skin only continues the scheming for
entrancing the eyes. Sullivan knew this, and wrote about the vacancy
of classicism used as a decorative style. It is a real shame that our
world grabs pieces and parts that lead to misunderstandings, and
creates clichés out of
substance. Form follows function is a fact that we need to understand
in its fullness and richness; even in parametricism. Form following
algorithms; or form following fancy, ignores the core sensibility in a
relationship that is explored by Panuk in his Musuem of Innocence –
see:
https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2026/04/the-architecture-of-memory.html
– the resonance of lived experience in context; that complexity of
form and function/function and form that embodies wholeness and
desire; the beauty and richness poets touch on - ‘I wandered lonely
as a cloud . . .’ It is a subtlety that Schumacher also dismisses
in his label, 'parametricism' that is a word that is as bespoke as his
buildings which all seem to try just too hard to be parametric: Oh!
How one struggles to get away from the ‘disability’ association!
One could reference the ‘Hadid signature’ apartment block in New
York, (yes, the actual signature was used in the sales blurb) – see:
https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2021/04/hadid-in-new-york.html
- where one can ponder the unique effort to impose some semblance of
things parametric onto a standard apartment block, where ‘interest’
is enhanced by awkwardly staggering levels and developing a series of
interlocked swooshes on the fully glazed facade positioned in front
of columns irrespective of the interior spaces – bathrooms, living
rooms, or bedrooms - all to disable the core modernist expression?
.jpg)
.jpg)
Careful attention to
the experience of place and everyday, ordinary living in it, seems to
have given way to the drama of the vision that turns residents into
actors on display; participants in pure theatre. Parametricism is a
hollow whim, not a successor to Modernism. Schumacher needs to
understand this so that his disappointment does not eventually
overwhelm him. It might be an interesting diversion, and good
branding, but parametricism is shaping a void managed by the clever
maths of smart computing, without any feeling or awareness of the
little things in life, even if parametricism is modified somehow by
tectonicism or another ‘ism.’ Paremetricism needs to find its
roots in a shared certainty of experience, and necessity, for it to
become universal instead of being a ZHA promotional kit, but this
will very likely change it into something else.
#
A simple guide to
parametricism
https://www.dezeen.com/2026/05/06/parametricism-simple-guide/
Who gets the seat behind the swoosh?
AI Overview
Parametricism is a 21st-century architectural style and
theoretical movement that uses computational algorithms to
create complex, fluid, and interconnected designs. Coined in 2008
by Patrik Schumacher, it uses parameters—such as site,
environmental data, or user movement—to drive design, moving away
from rigid, rectilinear, and traditional architectural forms.
Key Aspects
of Parametricism:
Computational
Foundation: It relies on advanced digital design tools
(e.g., Grasshopper, Dynamo) where modifying one parameter
automatically reshapes the entire design.
Aesthetics: Characterized
by "continuous variation," "dynamic curvilinearity,"
and "soft, organic, sweeping geometries".
Integration: It
moves beyond disjointed, modular design to create "elastic,
integrated wholes" where all elements are interlinked, similar
to natural systems.
Originator/Proponent: Primarily
developed and championed by Patrik Schumacher of Zaha Hadid
Architects, who proposed it as the successor to Modernism.
Key
Examples: Phaeno Science Center, MAXXI Museum,
and Heydar Aliyev Center.
Core
Principles & Goals:
Responsiveness: Buildings
are designed to adapt to environmental context and social demands.
Avoids
Repetition: It rejects the repetitive grids and flat
planes of modernism.
Continuous
Differentiation: Components in a parametric design
vary and adapt, creating a smooth, non-uniform aesthetic.
Functional Complexity: Aims to handle the
complex, diverse needs of modern society through computational
efficiency.
While closely linked
with the work of Zaha Hadid Architects, parametricism represents a
broader movement seeking to define a new, digitally driven
architectural era.
*
The Tecton Group was
a radical architectural group co-founded by Berthold Lebutkin,
Francis Skinner, Denys Lasdun, Michael Dugdale, Anthony Chitty, Val
Harding, Godfrey Samuel, and Lindsay Drake in 1932 and disbanded in
1939. The group was one of the leaders in bringing continental
modernism to Britain.
or
AI Overview
Tectonics is the scientific study of the processes that deform
Earth's crust, resulting in its structural evolution, mountain
building, and the movement of rigid lithospheric plates. As the
"building" mechanism of the planet, this field explains
earthquakes, volcanoes, and the movement of continental plates.
+
https://patrikschumacher.com/for-a-market-led-revolution-in-urban-housing/
##
It is interesting to
note how the television programme of this title, Grand Designs,
hosted by Kevin McCloud, has stimulated a new interest in
architecture. It is a show that chooses quirky projects and follows
them through with all of their disasters and dramas, only to end up
as, well, a grand design. There is no surprise that young architects
might like the hyped, bespoke exaggerations of parametricism. The
same degree of excited interest is generated in young students of
architecture when a new design programme becomes available. It seems
that fanciful projects and whizz-bang computer programmes are like
lollies for children – sugar hits: WOW!
^^
Frei Otto’s work
can also be referenced here, but his tensile structures have a
certain necessity about them, unlike Schumacher’s parametric forms:
the forces are the form, as in Gaudi’s work. In parametricism, the
form forces everything else, as the hyperbolic shape does too, to
functions.
P.S.
After the text had
been completed, this critique of parametricism was discovered:
https://www.dezeen.com/2026/05/11/douglas-spencer-parametricism-opinion/.
. . . and a few days
later:
https://www.dezeen.com/2026/05/13/melike-altinisik-parametricism-interview/
++
"...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."
Louis Sullivan
Sullivan anchors his vision in the real world, touching on that wonder which can be experienced everyday by everyman.
Might Schumacher
add: “and the law is the algorithm” – the mathematics of
nature: growth and form (c.f. D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson’s book On
Growth and Form first published 1917)? It is an interesting
observation, but it seems that there is nothing more to parametricism
than the algorithm and its functioning; it points to nothing. Here
one might introduce the subject of symbolism, and think about the Zen
Buddhist story of the finger pointing to the moon:
AI Overview
The "finger
pointing to the moon" is a classic metaphor originating
from Zen Buddhism—specifically the Shurangama
Sutra. It illustrates that teachings, words, and concepts
(the finger) are merely tools used to guide us toward ultimate truth
and enlightenment (the moon).
With
parametricism, it seems that the algorithm and its operation becomes
the core centre of attention - the finger - with the moon being
ignored, playing no role in the relationships being explored.
The Sullivan
reference is not some quaint, nostalgic romanticism, pining for past glories.
The experience Sullivan is referencing touches filaments of feeling
that extend into many other fields, establishing roots that can
branch off into a variety of aspects of learning and understanding that
can inform and add depth.
The architect who
combines in his being the powers of vision, of imagination, of
intellect, of sympathy with human need and the power to interpret
them in a language vernacular and time--- is he who shall create
poems in stone.
Louis
Sullivan
Poems are never forced, not even by the power or panache of parametricism; they wait for the
muse - see: HOW POETRY COMES TO ME in the sidebar:
HOW POETRY COMES TO ME
It comes blundering over the
Boulders at night,
it stays
Frightened outside
the
Range of my campfire
I go to meet it at
the
Edge of the light
Gary Snyder
www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/s_z/snyder/onlinepoems.htm
THE ARTICLE
"I'm not happy" with how fast parametricism is being adopted says Patrik Schumacher
Tom Ravenscroft
Despite it being adopted more slowly than he anticipated, Patrik Schumacher believes parametricism will still become a universal architectural style, he tells Dezeen in this interview.
Almost two decades have passed since Zaha Hadid Architects principal Schumacher coined parametricism as a term at the 2008 Venice Architecture Biennale.
At the time, he declared parametricism "the great new style after modernism", prophesying that it would become the universal architecture style of the 21st century. He still believes that it will become the style that defines our era.
"Yes – it is still going to be true and it is already partly true when you look at major projects," Schumacher told Dezeen.
"It's not universal, but it's sufficiently entrenched," he continued. "It's been long-lasting, people still go for it, you still win major competitions and so it is definitely longer lasting than [for example] deconstructivism, which had a run of 10 years and then fully disappeared, or postmodernism, which also disappeared."
Global economic crisis "a watershed moment"
However, Schumacher acknowledges that – to his own disappointment – parametricism has not yet been widely adopted by the industry, and at the moment is far from a universal style.
"No, I'm not happy," he said. "I was very happy with it [the rate of adoption] until 2008 actually."
"I mean, it's strange that when I launched the phrase it was still moving and was confident. It took me a while to realise that the 2008 crisis was in retrospect a kind of watershed moment," he continued.
"We were all going for a number of years still, but it actually, if you look back, it's when it started to slow."
Zaha Hadid Architects' Heydar Aliyev Centre in Baku is one of the most recognisable parametric buildings.
Schumacher believes that the global economic recession, combined with leading architecture schools moving their focus away from digital design, led to a slowdown in the adoption of parametricism.
"By 2015, 16, 17 it had kind of shifted," he said. "There was a lot of retrogression, to some extent less interest in design. There was less opportunity in Europe, Dubai was dead. China kept going. But, overall, it was frustrating."
"By like 2012-13 it was still good, but I saw it kind of fading off, particularly at leading universities," he continued.
"They withdrew and went into this woke kind of territory – anti-capitalism, anti-design, anti-star architecture."
"I only see modernism and then parametricism"
Schumacher places parametricism alongside modernism as an "epochal style" – meaning that it is era-defining.
Within his definitions, he sees high-tech and brutalism as sub-styles within modernism, while he describes postmodernism and deconstructivism as transition styles that bridged the gap between modernism and parametricism.
"I only see modernism and then parametricism; these are the opposable styles of the 20th century and 21st century," he explained.
"The transitional styles are postmodernism and deconstructivism, then you have apparitions like neo-classicism – what Leon Krier was doing."
"Today's minimalism, for me, is a kind of retro-modernism, a reaction to deconstructivism, [while] high tech is a form of modernism, still in the full-on tradition."
"The right answer to the era of post-Fordism"
Schumacher's confidence that parametricism will eventually become widely adopted stems from his view that the style aligns with the needs of people in the 21st century.
He believes that while modernist architecture was fitting for an era of mass production, the flexibility within parametric design makes it ideologically aligned with our computer-dominated current age.
"These epochal styles are not whimsical or highly subjective, just to be explained out of influences," he said.
"What really drives the proliferation is a good fit with the sociology, economic, technology and dynamics of an era," he continued.
"Modernism was a good fit for that era of category production, and parametricism is the right answer to the era of post-Fordism, computational, telecommunication, et cetera."
As a result, Schumacher considers parametricism's eventual domination of architecture inevitable. The only way he foresees this not coming to fruition is if there is a major shift in how the global population operates.
"I don't expect any other style, unless there's another civilisational transformation," he explained. "There's nothing new, so we should not expect anything else."
"It's still a drop in the ocean"
Although parametricism is not being adopted at the rate that Schumacher hoped and expected, he argues that for some typologies it has become the dominant style, including airports.
"It's still a drop in the ocean, for some reason," he said.
"But I'm looking around the world, and you know, there are a lot of airports, nearly all airports, are parametricism."
For Schumacher, it's logical that the widespread adoption of parametricism will start with the largest, most complex buildings.
Schumacher believes that the majority of new airports, including Beijing Daxing International Airport, are parametric.
He believes that large-scale buildings – such as airports and stadiums, along with entire new neighbourhoods – are where parametricism has the greatest benefits for architects.
"The advantages of parametricism come out the strongest, the larger the project," he said. "Particularly in large mixed-use complexes, or if you're doing city expansions, extensions, knowledge economy clusters, incubator clusters, like our Unicorn Island project in Chengdu."
Schumacher claims that parametricism has evolved significantly since he coined the term, with parametric buildings becoming more complex and refined.
He acknowledged that early buildings in the style had to use lots of material and complex engineering to achieve a desired look.
"The first wave of parametricism was just form. On the inside you had hatched jobs of steel frames with cladding on the outside, and between was a huge kind of unaccounted-for pochette [pocket] – it was just surfaces," he said.
He cites Unicorn Island as a large project where the advantages of parametricism can be seen.
Now, however, he points to what he sees as an evolution of the style that he terms "tectonism" – which aims to directly link digital form-finding with physical fabrication and structural engineering.
Schumacher believes that tectonism makes more structural sense than earlier works and is therefore less of an easy target for criticism.
"Tectonism has more substance and credibility – it is not so easily dismissed as the earlier parametric buildings, which were partly illogical, partly over-expensive, let's say compositionally, artistic and willful," he said.
"They were popular, but in the profession, not respected. I think some of the things that we're doing with tectonism have more credibility, they have more rationality, also, it's good on the sustainability front – how much material you can save," he continued.
"They can be relatively smaller projects, which build up the credibility, and they have a beauty and organic sophistication and clarity and conscious conscientiousness [that means] they're not so vulnerable to critique."
"Young architects would love to design parametricism"
Despite the setbacks that parametricism has faced, Schumacher remains confident that the style, and in particular the sub-style of tectonism, will become widespread.
"[Even] with all the kind of discouragement from the schools of architecture that just want to talk about sustainability and social justice, all the students and young architects, what they would love to design and build is parametricism," he said.
"That's what I take a lot of encouragement from, along with the advent of AI, all these tools, Midjourney and so on. I think this is, for me, is very encouraging."
In fact, he not only believes that it will still become a universal style, but that all architects and educators should be working towards making this happen.
"I'm not only predicting that we will perceive parametricism as a uniform style, I'm saying we should wish for that and we should converge towards this," he said.
"And there are two reasons why. One is because it is the most sophisticated style in the sense of absorbing all the engineering optimisation intelligence," he continued.
"But also, it is good to be on the same paradigm if you want to build a city together, which functions together, something where there's a coherence with an identity and beauty," he said.
"It's not good that the different approaches fight each other, because then you don't generate something larger. All you get is the garbage spill, where everything is trying to be prominent and in the end, nothing is prominent – there's no hierarchy, no legibility and no logic."
NOTE
23
MAY 26
More
articles on parametricism:
https://www.dezeen.com/2026/05/21/parametricism-architecture-feature/
https://www.dezeen.com/2026/05/15/dezeen-weekly-parametricism/
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
