The relationship between architecture and capitalism, a foundation of parametricism, has long been eroded. This is the verdict of Douglas Spencer, an educator and theorist in the field of architecture and urbanism. Spencer argues that capitalism's shift towards accelerating inequality and maintaining unevenness has made it politically, rather than organisationally, motivated. As a result, the grand ambitions of parametricism, as envisioned by Patrik Schumacher, are now confined to an existence as urban relics, piecemeal probes into a future that cannot be.
Parametricism, once hailed as the great new style after modernism, was to be an architectural and urban repertoire geared towards creating complex, polycentric urban and architectural fields. Schumacher's manifesto positioned it within the avant-garde, valuing formal experimentation as an end in itself. However, Spencer highlights a critical flaw: Schumacher's manifesto fails to fully justify his argument. By situating parametricism within the avant-garde, Schumacher breaks away from the practices he is seeking affiliation with, such as those of Peter Eisenman, Rem Koolhaas, and Zaha Hadid.
The term 'modernism' is distinct from 'avant-garde'. Modernist architects aligned their discipline with modern industry and metropolitan life, while the avant-garde is a label of self-legitimation, indicating distance from ordinary and commercial elements. Schumacher, in his manifesto, advocates for parametricism in modernist terms, correlating architecture's formal and technological advances with those of capitalism in its contemporary manifestations. This shift from the avant-garde to modernism is significant, as it reflects a change in the relationship between architecture and capitalism.
Schumacher's description of parametricism as a 'style' is unhelpful, as it suggests a kinship with the self-designated architectural avant-garde. Instead, parametricism should be seen as a programme, addressing the organisational complexities of large corporations and the networked conditions of neoliberalism. It aims to create complex, polycentric urban and architectural fields, as evidenced by Zaha Hadid Architects' work for corporate clients like BMW and the SOHO skyscraper in Beijing. However, the DDP in Seoul, designed by ZHA, is a more fitting example of parametricism's potential. It balances spectacle, utility, and infrastructure, inviting exploration and everyday use.
Despite these efforts, the relationship between architecture and capitalism on which parametricism was premised has ceased to exist. Capitalism is now focused on accelerating inequality and maintaining unevenness, making it politically motivated rather than organisationally driven. As a result, projects like the DDP are confined to an existence as urban relics, unable to achieve the scale and ambition envisioned by Schumacher. Spencer concludes that parametricism's larger and organisational ambitions are now out of reach, leaving it as a mere reflection of post-Fordist production rather than an instrument of its organisational apparatus.
