In the realm of architecture, the concept of parametricism has long been a topic of fascination and debate. But as the forces of capitalism shift, so too does the relevance of this style. Personally, I think that the relationship between architecture and capitalism, which parametricism was premised on, has long since ceased to exist. What makes this particularly fascinating is the way in which the style was once touted as the great new style after modernism, with Patrik Schumacher announcing it as such in 2008. But now, with capitalism no longer interested in the lives of the masses, the question arises: is parametricism truly dead? From my perspective, the answer is yes. One thing that immediately stands out is the way in which Schumacher's manifesto falls short of capturing the essence of his own project. By positioning parametricism within the avant-garde, he situates it within a lineage where formal experimentation is understood and valued as an end in itself. However, his manifesto actually makes an about-turn from the idea of architectural autonomy, breaking ranks with the practices with which he is seeking affiliation. What many people don't realize is that Schumacher's description of parametricism as a 'style' falls short of capturing the distinctly programmatic essence of his own project. If you take a step back and think about it, it becomes clear that parametricism was always more than just a style. It was a response to the socio-economic era of post-Fordism and neoliberalism, advocating for the correlations between architecture's formal and technological advances and those of capitalism. This raises a deeper question: what does the death of parametricism imply for the future of architecture? A detail that I find especially interesting is the way in which the work of Zaha Hadid Architects (ZHA) largely comprises the regular staples of urban commodification. This suggests that parametricism, despite its ambitious project, was always destined to be a tool of the status quo, rather than a force for change. What this really suggests is that the relationship between architecture and capitalism, which parametricism was premised on, has long since ceased to exist. In these circumstances, projects such as the Dongdaemun Design Plaza (DDP) in Seoul are confined to an existence as urban relics, piecemeal probes into a future that cannot be. Personally, I think that the death of parametricism is a symptom of a larger trend: the decline of the avant-garde in architecture. In my opinion, the style was always more of a transitional episode than a long-term solution. What makes this particularly interesting is the way in which it connects to a larger trend of commodification and the intensification of the fetishization of the commodity. If you take a step back and think about it, it becomes clear that the death of parametricism is a reflection of the broader political and economic forces at play in the world today. In conclusion, the death of parametricism is a reminder that architecture is always shaped by the forces of capitalism. It is a cautionary tale about the limits of formal experimentation and the importance of understanding the broader context in which it takes place. What this really suggests is that the future of architecture lies in a more critical and socially conscious approach, one that is not bound by the constraints of the status quo.
