.jpg)
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.
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.
.jpg)
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.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
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.]
.jpg)
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.^^
.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.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
#
A simple guide to parametricism
https://www.dezeen.com/2026/05/06/parametricism-simple-guide/
.jpg)
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
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Sullivan anchors his vision in the real world, touching on that wonder which can be experienced everyday by everyman.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
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.
.jpg)
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 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."
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.
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.
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)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
