Suggest you focus on a specific architect or building typology - choose one which you can go see first hand or have the ability to interview design team - How and Why is much more about research than just the tool -

Just focus on a single parameter.

All architecture is parameteic.

I was thinking about.... 

1) climate and arrangment of material in parametric designs 

2) geometry in parametric architecture 

What do think about it... ??

You should start by looking at a dictionary. A parameter is an influence, requirement, etc. that drives or dictates an aspect of design. Gravity is a parameter. Heights are parameters. All architecture is parameteric because all architecture (that is non paper architecture) has to deal with the parameters of physics, the natural elements, and measurements.

Don't believe everything Schumacher tells you, and make sure to look up words you don't know in the dictionary rather than letting an avant garde artiste define them for you.

His research is more in the realm of continuous topology or systematic interlinking of all parts. Yes those parts have 'parameters' but you'd be a fool to ignore that even the most boring box buildings are operating off of some group of parameters.

Information is paramateric, builidings are static. You could argue that buildngs are parametric in so far as mechanical systems adjust to environmental conditions and user input, and this can also be tied to architectural elements such as louvers etc, but at the end of the day- buildings don’t move.

That said, the information used while designing fhe final static “baked” product IS parametric, no matter what architectural expression you employ. Design is invetibly an iterative process and being able to change proportions, dimensions, etc. are functions of larger parametric subsets. 

I disagree that Parametric Design should “look” parametric. Parametric design is not necessarily a style, though many people who live in the Zaha camp seem to believe that repeating manipulations of forms is what defines the expression of parametric design. 

I'd recommend you watching " The Story of Maths"- Marcus Du Sautoy, if you're new to the whole Parametric thing. 

@Adi22 

what specifically do you think 'parametric' means?

This is my favorite kind of parametric modelling ... do your research on this.

Techie true. Quite the marketing effort, even if it only seems to work on those who have little understanding of mathematics and English. The fact that so many are easily convinced speaks volumes of how illiterate academia apparently is. A sad affair to be honest.

Expanding on archinine's coment above:

The term "Parametric" was both a success and a failure of marketing in this case. 

To the uninitiated, the futuristic sound of "Parametric Architecture" appeals to an idea of the massive computational power of our generation being utilized to solve more complex problems than were ever thought possible (as is being done in so many non-design industries).

On the other hand, to the professionals who understand that all design is - in a sense - 'parametric', the use of the term allows for an easy dismissal of the concept as an underbaked fad only embraced by the aforementioned unedicated technocratic-wannabes. 

I think in a sense, what people actually mean when they refer to "Parametric Architecture" is both overrated by laypeople and underrated by professionals.

Maybe a rebrand is in order? Computational Architecture? Generative Design? ...hey, this might be a good research topic!

Tduds- there are plenty of seasoned professionals active in the field who discuss and employ computational design, automation in architecture and the possible futures of designing with advanced artificial intelligence.

Schumacher's is an attempt to borrow from and apply (in vain) the aforementioned concepts in a rebranding of what is ultimately deconstructionism - with curves rather than blocks...perhaps he hopes to remain relevant or justify what is arguably a movement already passé / settled in the history books.

The current genre doesn't need a rebrand - the words are complicated because the topic and mathematics behind it are complex. Students and those serious about research simply need to learn to ignore fanaticism and use a dictionary to look up words they don't understand.

Oh I didn't mean to imply that there aren't brilliant professionals working in this genre, just musing on the fact that the out-of-hand rejection of and naive embrace of might both come from the same misunderstanding of the given term.

And while I'm not fan of Schumacher's social idologies, I've been more impressed by the last year of work out of ZHA than I was by anything in the 5 or so years before Zaha's death.

I can definitely relate to your struggle here. "Parametric Design" is probably the most interesting, yet, confusing topic to write about as a student. I initially started with this area because I did not fully understand what "parametric design" was about. Sadly, I came across a lot of academic writings that just do not give a coherent view of what "parametric design" really is (let alone Schumacher's ego-centric jargons), because this term is extremely broad. My confusion to this term only ended when one of the papers remarks: "...parametric design is a constant misnomer". From this point, you will start to read and interpret writings differently because the fact is many writers/thinkers have deployed this term way too casually.

As you can see from this thread already, someone has already been confused about "parametric design" as a style. My simple answer is, "parametric design" is more of a tool for optimization in practice.

building codes are a parametric process

/end of thread.